Pronouns: She/Her

Novice Policy:

• You can use speech drop or an email chain, I don't really care as long as I get the doc: liane.bdair@barstowschool.org
• I am fine with spreading, however, always clarity over speed.
• Open cross-ex is fine.
• Please flow on paper!
• Extend cards with Authours and Dates, or else I don't consider the evidence extended.
• Do line-by-line analysis in the rebuttal, no new cards in rebuttal speeches please (maybe 1ar, only if absolutely necessary).
• Give a road map before every speech and sign-post during speeches.
• Cross-ex time is for asking/answering questions only. Do not assert arguments during cross-ex, that is what your speeches are for.
• Be respectful!
• If you want specific feedback I will provide it at the end of the round, I don't usually write comments on Tabroom.
• Speaks are based on articulation of arguments and clarity of speech, they are also based upon your respectfulness as a partner and opponent.
• Generally tech > truth.

Argument Preference:

I have none, however I do have a preference about how you argue them :)

• Kritiks: I was a K debater and love Kritiks but I need a solid framework and impact calc. Also how does your alt (if youre running one) solve the Aff better? Don't read a K you don't understand please.
• Topicality: Topicality is important, Aff don't drop it (which should go without saying). I need extensions of specific interps and why to prefer them on T. If there is a clear violation and consequences to the Aff not being topical, then I will vote on T.
• CP/DA: I usually am not a big fan of PICs but if you can convince me, then that's that. Impact calc on the DA please. Why does the CP have more net benefit than the plan?
• General Theory: I don't mind a good theory debate, but don't waste peoples' time. I assume condo good unless convinced otherwise.

If you are disrespectful or discriminatory (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.) in any way, that will cause me to automatically vote for the other team and lower speaks. This includes arguments such as patriarchy good, racism good, etc.

Most importantly: Be confident, enjoy yourself, and be respectful. Extra speaks if you incorporate a Shrek quote into your speech.

I've debated in varsity congress for 2 years, and competed in middle school congressional debate before that. My last year in Congressional Debate, I got 3 bids to the TOC. I was 4th in the state for extemp last year, and I've also competed in the IPDA National Championships. I'm now the captain of the LRCH mock trial team. In other words, I know and love speech and debate, and not much gets past me.

Speaker Paradigm:

1. I want to see debate that is actually debate. I do not want to see competing oratory. You should address other speakers, and create clash in the round.
2. I want clear signposting as well as CWDI. All of your points should have data, and your source should be clear. Your impact should be an actual impact.
3. Intros and Outros are a must. Also, sponsors and first negs need framework.
4. You should know parliamentary procedure, and use it.
5. Ask hard but fair questions, and please don't talk over each other.
6. Remember, you are a congressperson, so act like one should.
7. Don't speak too fast. If I can't understand you, you're not persuading me.
8. Remember: Ethos, Logos, Pathos.
9. I would rather you have fluency issues than read a speech word for word.
10. A good preround is appreciated by all.
11. Out rounds and high level tournaments (Invitationals, TOC, Nats) multiply all these factors.

TLDR: Clash, Good and Clear Speeches, Parliamentary Procedure, Decorum.

Presiding Officer Paradigm:

1. I believe a good PO should always be ranked.
2. I believe a great PO should almost always be ranked 1st.
3. If you are the only person in your chamber willing to PO, I can excuse some mistakes.
4. If you got elected, you should be ready to perform.
5. Be fast, clear, concise, and fair no matter what.
6. Online PO sheets are preferred.
7. You need to know parliamentary procedure, and I will not hesitate to correct you.
8. Out rounds and high level tournaments (Invitationals, TOC, Nats) multiply all these factors.

TLDR: Be Concise and Precise, Be Ready To Perform, Parliamentary Procedure, Decorum.

IPDA Paradigm

1. The P in IPDA stands for public. This debate form should be understandable by the general public, so no esoteric arguments or spreading. Furthermore, by all means use flowery rhetoic. This isn't a policy round, this is a PUBLIC debate.
2. You must have good clash, I don’t want to sit through a debate where y’all don't respond to each other's arguments.
3. Please for the love of all that is holy, signpost.
4. I think at the novice level line by line is best for rebuttals.
5. Don’t be disrespectful to your opponents, but I love a bit of sassiness in cross. I'm all about style points.
6. LET people answer your questions in cross, cross ex is a time to poke holes in your opponent’s arguments, not for you to just read case arguments that aren’t questions.
7. Do impacts please. I judge on solvency and weighing. I also judge on rhetorical ability and style.
8. If you need to use the restroom during a round, we can take a bathroom break between speeches.
9. Things that are bad: racism, sexism, homophobia, falsifying evidence, discriminator behavior, not being kind to the other team OR your teammate.
10. Comply with all AI Rules. I am a big AI optimist, so I support it's use within the rules set by ACTAA and the NSDA.
11. Things that are generally good: Garfield References (the cat or the president), line by line, solid argumentation, clash, having fun, and being a good speaker.

TLDR: Speak Clearly, Rhetoric, Clash, Be Respectful, Style Points, and Have Fun!

Novice Policy Paradigm:

1. Email Chain, Email Chain, Email Chain : Lukewbeck2005@gmail.com
2. I’m good with spreading. I just ask you to prioritize clarity over speed, make sure what you’re saying is flowable, intelligible, etc.
3. Stick with the aff you’ve prepared, I have no preference on the aff or neg arguments you read.
4. You must have good clash, I don’t want to sit through a debate where y’all don't respond to each other's arguments.
5. Don’t spread your rebuttal, I think at the novice level line by line is best for rebuttals.
6. Don’t be disrespectful to your opponents, but I love a bit of sassiness in cross.
7. LET people answer your questions in cross, cross ex is a time to poke holes in your opponent’s arguments, not for you to just read case arguments that aren’t questions.
8. Do impacts please. I judge on solvency and weighing.
9. If you need to use the restroom during a round, we can take a bathroom break between speeches.
10. Things that are bad: racism, sexism, homophobia, falsifying evidence, discriminator behavior, not being kind to the other team OR your teammate.
11. Things that are generally good: Garfield References (the cat or the president), line by line, solid argumentation, clash, having fun, and being a good speaker.

TLDR: Email Chain, Clarity, Clash, Be nice, Have fun, Impacts!

Hello!

The Basics: I am fine with spreading as long as it is flowable and I can understand what you are saying. The best advice I can give you is to BE CONFIDENT!

Specifics: I am a Policy debater myself so I will understand and vote on Case, CP, T, and DA's. If its the better argument then I will definitely take it into how I vote. I am familiar with the basics of K's and enjoy a well run K.

In conclusion the best thing you can do is understand your arguments and be confident. Good luck! I look forward to judging you!!

P.S. I will give extra speaks for pop culture references and song quotes thrown into speeches...the more the better. ;)

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

Caius Gish cgish06@gmail.com

Background Information: I am currently a senior high school debater for Heritage Hall, and I have debated for four years.

Novice Paradigm:

Open CX is fine by me, but it is up to the consensus of both teams.

Email Chain is preferable to speech drop, and I would like to have access to whatever method is used.

I am tech over truth, which means that under normal circumstances, if I am given the chance, I will default to whatever argument I think has been executed the best. There are some standards, as my threshold for some arguments, such as SPARK, is much higher than others. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for it, so if you feel confident explaining an argument, than you have the ability to run it.

Please keep focus on the round from the beginning of the 1AC-the end of the 2AR. I would prefer that you focus on prepping before and after rounds, but I understand that some rounds are stressful, so there is grace there. However, if I see someone clearly not participating during the round, it will most likely reduce your speaker points.

Although the goal of a tournament is to win, win or lose, it is likely that there are going to be many different mess-ups regarding flow, answering arguments, and other basics. As such, the most you can do towards improving is giving your best attempt at understanding the round.

Most importantly, have fun!

Barstow 24 High school senior email: nithin.guduputi@barstowschool.org

Do what you want. I will evaluate arguments based on what is said. I will not question the validity of an argument unless explicit evidence is provided to the contrary.

I will judge the rounds based on

Traceability of argument- I want to be able to understand the argument which can be achieved by clearly conveyed arguments with a traceable line of reason.

Strength of Rebuttal- if the rebuttal properly answers the opposition's argument and extends their own arguments again.

Respectfulness- I fully expect debtors to be respectful of one another and conduct themselves with manner and poise.

I will maintain time, good luck.

Hello! Please put me on the email chain, (nathan.hollander05@gmail.com).

About me: I'm a Senior in high school, and I have been debating policy for the past 4 years. I have a little bit of experienced judging, but make sure your arguments are explained well. I come from the online debate times so I know how much of a nightmare tech can be, no need to take prep if you have difficulties sending, just try to be quick about it.

Debate Stuff: I can understand spreading decently well, but please go slower for tags and analytics. I'm fine with all arguments and I really like Ks, just make sure you explain the alt. Tech > Truth but truth helps make points believable. Don't clip and don't steal prep. Overall, just debate how you normally would and have fun!

NOTE: If I am juding a non policy round, dont assume I know anything, make sure everything you do is well explained as this may be the first time I've seen that type of debate

(Bonus speaks if you put effort into your outfit)

Most of my debate experience is from middle school. I understand argumentation and the policy format, but I am not reading topic literature. I can handle a little speed, especially with speech docs.

Austin Le

Email: ale25@heritagehall.com

General:

1. Run any argument you want - just make sure you explain it well
2. Impact out your arguments - tell me what I should vote on at the end of the debate
3. I'm good with speed, just be clear
4. I'm good with open cross-ex
5. Have fun and be kind

Affs: Run any aff you want. Just make sure you can defend it from any different angle. Generally, what I'm looking for is good impacting out and defense of your aff. If you don't have an impact, then there is not a good reason for me to really vote aff. That means impact calc is very important. If you are running a no-plan aff, then you should be able to explain it. Explain why we don't need USFG and why your impacts outweigh.

DAs: I like DAs, especially ones with specific links and impacts that interact with the aff. It is important that you explain how, even if it is a generic DA, it interacts with the aff. Similarly to the aff, make sure to do impact calc and give me a reason for why the DA outweighs. Plus, bear in mind that the biggest part of the DA is the story it tells. Your story has to be logical and paved out well. This just means all the parts of the DA should be clear (UQ, link, internal link, impact). 

CPs: CPs need to maintain a net benefit to win against the aff. If it isn't clear what your net benefit is by the end of the round, then there is no reason to vote on the CP. Affs should also look for solvency deficits to ensure CPs get the least amount of advantage possible. 

Ks: If you are going to run a K and go for it the 2NR, absolutely commit to the philosophy that it is being read under. Don't try to be "capitalism is kinda bad in the instance of the aff". Stand by what your literature says and make sure you understand what it means and can explain it. Important things to have for a K are:

1. Framework--what the ballot does and the role of the judge

2. How it links to the aff, the more specific the better

3. what the impact is, and why it matters over the impacts of the aff

4. How the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and the impacts of the aff. I am comfortable with voting on only framework, but make sure to keep your alt intact, otherwise, there isn't a great reason to vote for the K. 

Theory/FW: Think about how these things affect debate as a whole. Make sure there is an impact on the debate as an activity for theory. For framework, explain why your view of debate is better than your opponent's 

Topicality: As previously stated, I believe more in tech than truth. That being said, I think theory is much more persuasive. If something is untopical under your definition as neg, explain why that is a bad thing.

Condo: I think condo is fine as long as it's not abusive. This also applies to neg flex. So, unless a team does a poor job of answering theory

CP/K theory (PIC/PIK, process, actor, etc...): Any argument the neg runs can be argued about whether it is fair. It is up to the aff to prove why it isn't and for the neg to prove it is.

Current Head Coach at Lansing High School in Kansas, Previously Head Coach at Buhler High School in Kansas (traditional-style debate 4A school). I judge rounds regularly, and have for the last 10 years.
I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics @ Eudora High

General Things

Speed - clarity is important, Im more on the slow end of fast debate. Add me to the email chain and I can usually keep up ok. larissa.maranell@usd469.net

FYI: I have a degree in Biology, this is included b/c my threshold for answering crap science args is low. Im not gonna do the work for the opponent but they wont need to do much. Also bad logic hurts your ethos.

In Policy Rounds -

I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.

Kritiks: I enjoy them but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, If you cant make sure your opponent understands the K its not productive to the round, to you, or to anyone. You also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it. (TLDR- don't be lazy and I will weigh it)

I love a good T debate :)

In LD Rounds -

Value and Value Criterion are not just buzzwords, they are central to the LD form of debate, if you read them just to move on to your policy framework that isn't the point.

In PFD Rounds -

PFD is not Policy.

Make sure you give me framework in the 1st speech, Judge instruction is key.

Hello, my name is Paula! For these past years I've competed in congress, pf, and in a variety of different speech events. I love speech and debate and have been judging for about two years now aside from competing, mostly policy and LD. There are things I look for such as enunciation and, if you spread, neat spreading (clear speech, of course stuttering is going to happen and will always, just not so much that it gets in the way of delivering your argument.) I love kritik (or as some of you may know it, K) and encourage it as it gives an interesting debate round. Last thing- bigotry, ignorance, & lack of proper etiquette towards your peers is NOT tolerated. Can't wait to hear your arguments, good luck :)!

Meera Patel - Heritage Hall '23 

Email: mpatel23@heritagehall.com

General:

Please be kind to your partner and your opponents. I prioritize behavior over all else. Yes, the debate is important, but you must respect everyone in the round, first and foremost. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. comments. With that being said, every round is a chance to grow and improve, so just try your best and try to have fun! 

File sharing:

I am okay with flashing, but I would much rather have an email chain made. It's more organized and more efficient for everyone. I understand that technical difficulties are inevitable, so I won't take prep time for sharing files as long as it takes a reasonable amount of time.

If you're aff, please disclose the aff before the round (unless breaking a new aff). 

Cross-ex:

Open cross is perfectly fine. However, do not speak over your partner, especially if it is their cross-ex. Give them a chance to try, then step in if necessary. Remember to use cross-ex to clarify the opponents' arguments. If you do not understand a card, the general argument, etc., ask about it. 

Please, remain respectful to your partner and your opponents during cross-examination.

Speeches:

Before you start your speech, give the road map to let everyone know how many advantages/off case there are. It is best to give your speeches in the same order. If you are aff, start with the case in your speeches. If you are neg, start with the off case in your speeches.  

When answering arguments, try to go down the flow and refer to the argument you're answering to ensure the debate stays organized. When you extend arguments, briefly summarize the argument. 

I am fine with spreading, but please be clear. Indicate when you have moved on to a different advantage/off case and make sure to say "next" before reading a new tag so I can distinguish between cards. 

I will time your prep to ensure everyone is on the same page, but be sure to time it yourself to get into the habit of it. 

AFF:

I am fine with just about anything.

If you run a planless aff, be sure you can prove that the aff has an impact and that it outweighs. 

NEG: 

Again, I am fine with anything.

If you are running a K, be able explain it well, especially the alt and the framework. 

Know your literature.

You cannot spread nearly as fast, do as well in cross-ex, or create later speeches if you are unfamiliar with your evidence. 

I’m a senior at Casady School, been a policy debater for four years now

Pronouns - she/her

yes, put me on the email chain - riashah714@gmail.com

time yourself pls

yes to open/tag-team cross-ex

Basics: I will pretty much vote on anything as long as it's argued well. It's really awesome that you're even in debate, so just have fun and be confident.

Just a few things I feel semi-strongly about:

K

Love Ks. But please for goodness' sake do not read a k you know nothing about

Theory

Condo is good, i will rarely ever vote on condo bad

Tech vs. Truth

I lean more towards tech. 

Spreading

Be clear. Don't spread if you can't. Spreading comes with time and practice, so don't force it. 

Speaks

I'll give speaks based on vibes and how well I think you debated. If you're being a bully, automatic zero. 

Random things:

- BE KIND. If you are rude, that will most certainly change the ballot, reduce speaks, and send a bad word for you. Attitude is part of persuasiveness so that's allowed :) There is a spectrum however, so don't cross the line. 

- DON'T read args like racism good, patriarchy good, etc. It is not ok to promote things like that.

- HAVE FUN! Don't stress. Debate gets easier as you go along. If you play good pre-round music, I'll give you +0.1 speaks

If you have any questions, pls email me. I'd be happy to help! I am not amazing, but I will try to lead you down the right path. :)

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.