I like to see good clash between the teams and don't like when a team runs an argument with the intention of just confusing the other team. I will vote on topicality, but only if it is done correctly. I personally don't like spreading, but I wont vote against you if you do it. I also do not consider an argument dropped until its the last speech and the team hasn't brought it up again.

Max B. Chisham (They/He)

Derby High School

Derby, KS

4 Years of Policy Debate

maxchisham@gmail.com

Do what you want. Do it to the best of your ability. Don't get into a shouting match. Don't be a bigot, your speaks will drop. As a whole just be chill, be a good person, and convince me.

I do believe open CX and disclosure is best, but open CX does not mean talk over your partner.

I flow prompting (ask me to elaborate).

I'm a flow judge.

Also if I'm able to disclose a response I will if you want to. 

Don't run T if you think the plan is topical, same w/ other theory args.

If you have any questions or concerns ask me in/before/after round.

P.S. Email>SpeechDrop. SpeechDrop is not good for debate.

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

I am an assistant debate coach. I value the arguments and speaking skills equally. I am ok with faster deliveries but you should still be understandable. I would rather have you speak slowly and clearly than stumbling and tripping over your words trying to go quickly. I also judge on politeness. If you are kind and polite to me and your teammates, you get a few bonus points. It is not advantageous for you to be harsh or unkind in a debate round.

As a debate coach, I want to see a well structured case. You should make it easy to follow, understand and flow. This means I want to see you sign posting and your cards in your shared evidence should be labeled by Advantages, DAs, Solv, etc.

I judge based off stock issues. You should be explaining to me in your rebuttals why your team wins on Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency and Significance. It is your job to break down the other team's arguments and doing impact calculus. You should also be spending the rebuttals convincing me why your team should win and asking me for your vote.

DAs/CPs - I am ok with DAs and CPs as long as they have clear and strong links. I would rather you spend your time as a Neg team presenting DAs or CPs rather than Ts or Ks.

Topicality - Topicality arguments in my opinion are usually weak and do not hold much ground. They do not play a large role in gaining my vote so I would stay away from them when possible.

Kritiks - I am not a fan of K Affs. I believe that it defeats the purpose of the debate and is unfair to the opposing team as it is not topical to the resolution. Do not introduce Ks unless they are well thought out and there are clear links. I think your time can be better used bringing up arguments already tied in the debate.

Hannah Erdman, Eisenhower High School, Assistant Debate Coach

Previous Experience: HS Policy Debate, Kansas State University Policy Debate

-Please keep email chains off-time, however please be time efficient and use best practices. If that means requesting I be included, please let me know.

-Keep track of your opponent's prep time. I will be giving constructive feedback and actively writing notes and flow. To keep this from being hindered, your use in timing and keeping track of prep time when there is no timekeeper is highly appreciated.

-Debate is about strategy and confidence-- while some aggression is to be expected, I do not want to hear yelling, curse words, or slurs. Do not threaten physical violence and do not insult your opponent's physical appearance or character.

-While I am able to understand most speeds, I deeply appreciate the ability to annunciate and signpost cards and arguments effectively to keep the flow as accurate as possible. If I am unable to keep the flow accurate, that may lead to my voting against your team.

-I go into each round objectively neutral and with no strong favor in either direction. My personal politics do not play into who I vote for, rather the best debate and who provided the strongest arguments all the way through. I do flow arguments to when and how they are addressed.

-On Disadvantages: I like generic DA's, but DA's with strong, specific links are more apt to be voted on, as they are better for complex, competitive debate.

-On Counterplans: CPs can be run, but believe in your counterplan and be confident!

-On Kritik: I love good K, but make it SPECIFIC. You can feel free to run generic K, but I feel as though it does not lend itself for constructive debate.

-On Topicality: I love hearing T arguments-- keep them interesting and stick with them throughout the round! T is a completely valid strategy to use in-round.

-I LOVE framework, rules, and semantics debate. Keep it fun, keep it interesting.

-If you are not flowing, I will not flow. This will ultimately hinder your team.

-Do NOT put new arguments in the 2NC-- it is unfair to the other team to try and answer in rebuttals.

Stock Issues

Me

(she/they) - mariannegriffithdb8@gmail.com

4 years of debate at Maize High ---> Wichita State

2a for 3 years, now a 2n

----

For novices! - Try your best and be confident i will be happy to answer any questions after round and provide any help you need - Extending arguments into the rebuttals is key to being able to win and going for your best arguments in your last speeches - speak loudly and give a road map of what you're going over

----

Overview

Tech>Truth - despite some of my opinions this applies to all arguments (except for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)

I try to make myself very easy to read so you'll know what I'm thinking during the round

Speed is good but clarity makes speed possible

debate is a game.

read rehighlightings

i will not vote on out of round stuff

I hate theory debates, ugh, please do not be the team that throws the debate away and goes 5 minutes of condo in the 1ar. go for substance. PLEASE.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I will just assume it says X.

tell me what to do and how to vote - i hate judge intervention

my predispositions here don't mean I won't vote for an argument if you're winning it. they are just my preferences - debaters should be able to say nearly anything they want to in a debate - judges should adapt to debaters

the flow is the only thing that decides the debate

Case

Impact turns please and thank you - does this mean wipeout? - i would rather not, but it's your round.

I went for a whole batch of impact turns heg bad and democracy bad the ones i read the most

Topicality

competing interps are good

aff should go for reasonability is a solid arg and mishandled a lot of the time by the neg - substance crowdout as an impact is almost always dropped and can turn and outweigh lots of impacts the neg might bring up

I will really really not want to vote on dumb interps these things include [t-increase, insert thing is not included in the plan text, not a big fan of vagueness/aspec args - vagueness favors the aff]

you should explain the vision of the topic under your interp - these include things like caselists and tvas

Counterplans

I will judge kick when told to

Probably not the best for complex competition debates - i've only been in a competition debate once (so far) and it was a practice round lol - If this is your 2ar strat than you need to be clear and concise

I think i lean toward condo good, but i honestly don't have that strong of a preference here, i could go either way on it - tbh i'm not going to like this debate if it comes down to it - i don't like theory debates that much especially since they're done, well... very badly...most of the time

DAs

fav is ptx <3, I think link debates are important. low risk of link or sus link = low chance of ballot. impact calc is also super important here. Evidence comparison is good.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

Ks on the neg

I've went for the k a good chunk of times - the two being fem and biopolitics

Over all, I have lots of experience with k lit including [afropess and its other variations, queer ks, orientalism, set col, cap, biopolitics, fem] - but i will need hand-holding on [pscyhoanalysis, baudrillard, bataille, deleuze, heidegger]

links of omission and to the status quo are not real links - so i'll definitely be swayed if the aff team goes for this type of argument - pls get better links y'all...

if your k relies on ontology then you have to win this debate or else you'll probably lose - ontology examples are definitely quality over quantity - you should use examples to implicate the K and how the world works (whether you're aff or neg)

I went for the floating pik a lot and won on it (an actual horrible amount) but, they're usually bad and it doesn't mean i like them- unless you say the words "it solves the entirety of the aff and circumvents the links" or articulate it as that i'm not going to weigh it as actually solving - blippy explanations are not real arguments to how it would work - if you barely mention it and then it becomes the 2nr i will rain hellfire upon you (jk)

rejection alts are alts but they're not very good ones

K affs

I'm think i'm OK for k affs - but i probably lean neg on a lot of things

I've always been on the neg against these affs. I think K affs should be in the direction of the topic and have an explainable theory of power that can be used against the neg's offense - solvency and actually having a mechanism are important in these debates whether that method be activism or something else

Clash and fairness can be impacts, but they can also be internal links - it all depends on the articulation that happens in the round - usually i find myself thinking that clash is a better impact

Quantifying limits and grounds for both sides are important here especially if you're going for the counter-interp, and when you're neg trying to prove loss of clash

usually counter-interps are trash and it makes the most sense to go for the impact turns

I've never seen a k v k debate

Clipping

I follow along in the doc. Meeting my minimum standard for clipping will result in a loss, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it

(stolen from Nathan Glancy)

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

if you want to accuse the other team of clipping then you need to stake the round on it

Misc

I've noticed an increasing amount of debaters just not letting the other team talk AT ALL in cross x and so i have a very low threshold for this because it's annoying and your speaks will probably get lowered

Disclosure is ALWAYS good and people are getting increasingly worse at it - i will most definitely vote on a disclosure interp if a team doesn't open source any of their docs and just uses cites- +.5 speaks if you tell me opensource (i will check)

cross x is always open unless another judge objects

pointing out author quals is good

Francisco Guardado [He/Him]

Email: fguardado163@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for four years at Salina South High School, mostly KDC, but I did dabble in DCI.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, just do it well and don’t be racist/homophobic/sexist. I’ll do my best to adapt to your style. Be clean on the flow and explain things that need explaining, I.E. don’t assume I’m a cybernetics fanatic. Cool with speed if your opponents are.

Topicality/Theory

Personally, I believe that topicality is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove in-round abuse. Same with other theory arguments.

Disadvantages

Yes please, I love disads. This goes for all arguments, but please do impact calc - if you don’t it’s going to make my decision frustrating.

Counterplans

Not a fan of counterplans, but you can run them if they have a net benefit. I believe counterplans are conditional, but don’t abuse that.

Kritiks

Not well versed on many K’s. I am familiar with cap, queer, set col, and feminism. Anything else, please take some time to explain. Must have a framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs. Case.

Framework / Kritik Affirmatives

If I’m your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I’ll try my best to evaluate both arguments as fairly as possible. I tend to be 50/50.

Jayden Island

Experience: Debated for 4 years in HS; 2x NCFL competitor and finalist in policy; 2022 NSDA competitor in policy and 2023 competitor in IX

Email: naomi.derby19@gmail.com

Things you should know:

Speed: Feel free to go as fast as you see fit; however, please make sure that you are signposting and that you are at least somewhat coherent. Will say clear if absolutely necessary.

CX: Please be cordial during this time and I don't care whether you use open or closed tbh

T: No specific preferences, but at least make sure that you are doing all of the work i.e standards & voters instead of just throwing out an interpretation with no context

DA: I really enjoy the work done on econ disadvantages, especially when there is a strong link. Any disads are fine, again, as long as you clearly explain the story and don't just provide buzzwords like "O/W & Turns case," etc. I really don't love politics disadvantage as I feel that the links are very weak, but I will evaluate them regardless granted that you do sufficient line-by-line explanations.

CP: Please provide a net benefit. On Aff, explain how the perm can solve for the CP and why your plan has greater solvency. For Neg, do the same work on solvency, and please extend your CP into the block as 9/10 times, it's not as bad as you think it is.

K: You will have to explain each of your FW arguments in order for me to buy the story- if you do not provide a competitive alternative I will likely not vote on the K, but feel free to go for the Link and ! if you would like to drop the alt after the block (but be sure to do all of the work to answer alt defense before doing so). I have gone for afro-pessimism, cap, and set-col so I am most familiar with that literature, though I am open to evaluating any critical arguments read throughout the debate.

please give me good song recommendations- will give extra speaker points if they're actually good XOXO.

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

Coaching: 1977-2023 [Kansas] Valley Center High School, Wichita North High School, Wichita Northwest High School, Maize High School & Campus High School

Paradigm: Pure Policy

Aff has burden of proof and neg presumption, so I will default neg if the aff can't prove their policy is comparatively advantageous. Impact calc is imperative.

DAs: Overviews, solid plan links, and impact calc; straight turns good!

CPs: Legit only if neg can prove the CP is competitive, i.e, mutually exclusive and/or net beneficial

Ks: Not a fan! So generic and boring. I want to hear good clash, not a K which most students don’t comprehend and can’t explain, sheer torture.

T: Don’t waste time on T if the aff is topical. If the case is truly not topical, then T’s a priori, so ensure you defend your interps, standards, and voters cogently and coherently.

Delivery: Lucid, professional, classy, articulate; speed bad=immediate loss.

Integrity: Be humble, kind, and respectful.

I was a high school debater and current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience, and I am always up to date on current topics. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans.

I am a games player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book. Victory at all costs is my motto when it comes to debate.

I love aggressive rounds. Every argument is on the table as long as you can defend it.

I would prefer to see your speeches in some way to judge the flow. I would like to have a roadmap if you want me to consider it in the best possible way.

Email: jogle@goddardusd.com

I have judged debate for 11 years while teaching at Campus High School. Clarity and understandability is a must! Debaters can speak fast, but not too fast like an Auctioneer. Quality, Quality and more Quality is the most important argument! I want a very clear explanation of the evidence. If I get lost or feel you are being redundant or speaking too fast I will show you body language. I will first have a look of bewilderedness a small clue then cross my arms to say, whoa!!!!

Be civil!

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!

Hi! I'm a third year debater from Derby High School. Don't be afraid to ask me any questions you might have <3

I'm a laid back person - you don't have to address me as judge outside of the debate.

I prefer disadvantage & topicality arguments to K's & CP's. I will vote on topicality if its ran right. Please don't run K's or CP's unless you 100% understand what you are arguing. I think the burden of proof rests on affirmative, and at the end of the debate you need to convince me why I should vote for aff.

I don't like unnecessary aggressiveness, particularly during CX.

A clear voice and confidence wins over speed for me. I think confidence is key when arguing and presenting your case.