2022 Emporia High Glassbreakers Debate Invitational
2022 — Emporia, KS/US
Novice Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am currently in my second year of debating with Manhattan Highschool. I have no particular stance on Aff, just know your case well. I have no preference on Neg strategies that will turn the ballot. However, personally, I like on-case arguments, and DA's. If you run a K or a CP, you should be able to explain it well, in lay terms, the same for T. For both teams, respond to ALL arguments. Take full advantage of your rebuttals, I will always advocate for the team with the most persuasive rebuttal. I want to see you selling your arguements.
Debated 4 years at Manhattan High School.
Qualified for Nationals my Sophomore year and competed at KDC State, 4-Speak, and 2-Speak.
I find myself to be a mix of policy maker and tabula rasa. Just debate however you'd like, I'm merely judging.
Speed: If you speak fast enough to the point where I can't understand the words flying out of your mouth, I will lose interest and in turn not view your argument as effective.
Cross-Examination: I prefer closed, doing an open version and having your partners do all the work only makes me wonder if you're incompetent on your arguments.
Kritiks: I'm fine with a K being ran as long as it is only the negative team doing so.
Counterplans: I don't care if you run one or not, just don't expect it to be a major voter for me.
Topicality: Only if the affirmative plan is blatantly un-topical will make me care or not, just present an effective argument and I will dive deeper. If you can persuade me enough it is a voter.
Impact Calculus: Best thing you could do in a debate round. Tell me your standing impacts, why you outweigh, and why the opposing team doesn't have impacts or why they're absolute.
Framework: If you use any sort of framework in a debate round, please go in depth, I don't want to decipher exactly what you mean.
If you're affirmative, keep your case intact. Make sure the structure is there with minimal loose ends. Play more defensively rather than offensively.
Tell me what you win on and why your opponents lose, instead of making me spend more time piecing together your arguments myself.
Be nice to your opponents, debate is an activity we all should enjoy and learn from.
2nd year debater at MHS.
Not a fan of emotional appeals. I don't care that "all my friends and family are going to die" or "thinking about the children", just explain your cards and why your impact outweighs PLEASE!
CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!
Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed. No spreading in novice though. There is no need to be speaking that fast, I will dock you points in that instance. If you can only get through your speech by spreading then you have too many cards.
On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.
Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.
K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then.
DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.
T: I will not vote on Ts, especially not in novice. You can run them, I just won't flow them. As long as the AFF is at least trying to answer to them I will never vote in favor of a T. If you are running this your on-case better be spectacular. If the AFF is really off topic then I will let this one slide, but only if.
CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF.
Rebuttals are the most important parts of the round to me. I guarantee you that I will not remember every little thing you say, please remind me in rebuttals. Don't waste speech time.
I prefer actual cards over analytics, AKA please don't just run analytics for the entirety of your constructives. If you can't back up your statements with actual evidence I'll be less likely to vote in your favor. A mix of both is fine, just give me something to work with.
I don't like arguments based on the dates of evidence. Unless something major happened that would make the evidence relayed in the card no longer true, I won't consider date arguments. If you tell me not to consider a card because its from "the nineteen hundreds" and its from the 80's, you will lose the round and I will be mad at you because you are a lazy debater.
I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them. If you tell me that the other team didn't answer to your on-case arguments in their 1NC when they ran off case arguments and that I therefore cannot consider any future arguments from them because the issue was dropped, I will give you the four. If you tell me not to consider a K because it was run in a 1NC instead of on-case issues I will give you the four. Lazy debaters run nonfactual arguments.
If you run extinction good, I won't vote for you. If you talk to me before hand and incorporate some minuscule personal detail I tell you into your speech (like if your judge is a lawyer and find a way to incorporate some element of being a lawyer into your speech), I won't vote for you. I absolutely despise that, I won't vote for a bootlicker. If you run nuke war good, I won't vote for you.
Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.
Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is.