Spring Hill Broncos Debate Invitational
2022 — Spring Hill, KS/US
Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a mom of 2 debaters. This is my 5th year of judging debate. I prefer to understand the plan and evidence. Speaking too fast or stumbling over words will decrease the likelihood of me being able to fully understand your position.
Hi! This is my 2nd year judging debate and while I've judged multiple debates in these 2 years, I am definitely a lay judge. Take the time to emphasize your key arguments with me and remember that you are more educated on the topic than I am, so it's important that I can follow along. Not looking for you to dumb it down necessarily, but take that into consideration if you've got a particularly complicated case. Also, I'm looking for quality over quantity. Be respectful of each other but I like a gutsy, interesting debate. So take some risks and have fun!
Please add me to the email list or give me the code to speech drop. Feel free to contact me after the round if you have additional questions.
Email: ben.beckwith5@gmail.com
qualifications: I'm on my 4th year of high school policy debate now. I've been to JDI for 3 years now. I've state qualified for 3 years now as well.
Tech over Truth. Personally I do not care how good you are when it comes to speaking. I will vote off what I believe solves best. I try my best to only base it off of arguments in the round to limit judge intervention. The only thing your speaking ability affects is your speaks.
Speed: I can handle almost any speed as long as you are clear and distinguish taglines. I will still probably evaluate the arguments through your evidence if I can not understand you, unless the opposing team convinces me not too.
Evidence Sharing: Please share your case before the round as well as past 2NRs. Also send out your evidence before your speech in one document. You should be able to win the round with your opponents having everything before you speak.
Ethos: I’m much more lenient than most judges when it comes to Ethos. I understand that debate is a performance activity so as long as you are not straight up abusive I do not care if you have attitude. After the round please be respectful and friendly to your opponents and drop the performance. I will interfere if something goes too far. I WILL NOT TOLERATE RACISM, TRANSPHOBIA, HOMOPHOBIA, etc. If you choose to say or do something that falls into these categories you will lose the round and I may contact your coaches and the tournament organizer.
CX: I flow CX so if something is said I will probably have a record of it. Please refer back to CX in your speeches. Both sides should answer and ask questions reasonably.
I consider myself Tabula Rasa but I definitely do have some bias towards Ks, Ts, and ! Turns.
Affirmatives: I’m happy with both K AFFs and Policy AFFs. You should know your specifications or the specifics of your K AFFs advocacy. If the other team runs a spec argument and can prove that they are missing something on ground then I am subject to vote off of it.
On Case: I will still vote off of on case but personally I think on case should be a supplement to your off case. I like impact turns and solvency defense the best.
DA: I’m good with DA’s as long as you have all parts.
CP: My only requirement is that Counter-plans should not be apart of the resolution. You are free to run any wacky counter-plan you want but you should be able to prove why it’s not abusive.
K: I love K debates and K v K debates. I am a K debater myself so this is where I am most knowledgeable. I also believe that you can drop the alt and run it as a DA.
Theory: I like theory arguments a lot. I think topicality, framework, and other theory arguments can be very convincing. I will compare standards which will require some judge intervention. This can be limited by impact debating.
Rebuttals: Make rebuttals as simple as possible for me to vote on. Give me specific reasons why I should vote for you. You should be telling me exactly what I should be writing on my RFD.
Record:
Policy: 1-0
Kritikal: 0-0
Tabula Rosa on the content of arguments but I do favor the persuasion aspect so I like performance over the content.
Adiel García
Add me to the Email chain: 124070@usd230.org
SHHS'24
I have debated cjr, water resources, emerging technologies, and now economic inequality. I mainly debate KDC with experience in the DCI division as well.
Overview
Tech ≥ Truth (ifykyk)
Clarity>Speed
Debate is a game, so run whatever you want as long as you understand it and explain it well. If it isn't mentioned in the 2NR/2AR I won't vote on it. Be good people. Don’t be mean. Anything that is racist,homophobic,sexist, etc will lose you the round and I will contact your coach about it. Provide trigger warnings if needed.
Judging Preferences
I default to policymaker if not given framework.
I'm probably the best to judge policy v policy, policy v k, and k v fw. k v k can be extremely messy but hey shoot your shot if you want to go in that direction.
T-I love a good T debate. I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability you should explain what it looks like. You will never win T as an RVI.
DA-My favorite argument of all time. They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way. Linear DAs are cool.
CP-I think that every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type of net-benefit. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans. PICs must also show how they compete.
K-Love 'em. I've ran abolition,governmentality/biopower,imperialism,orientalism, and sett col. Besides that, I'm familiar with cap,afropess,fem,queer,and academy. I'm not the best for psychoanalysis or pomo. If you are running a k that I'm unfamiliar with that's fine, just over-explain it. I think the link is the most important part of the K. If I can't understand how the aff links to the K, I probably won't vote on it. Links of omission are ok.Rejection alts are not real alts, give me something concrete. If you want to win on a k, framework is a must.
Theory-I think that a majority of theory arguments,condo being the obvious exception, are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I default to condo being good. I'm fine with vagueness and the a-z spec theory arguments. I will not judge kick unless you tell me to.
On case-Love it. I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Impact turns are cool.
K-Aff/Performance-I ran a borders k-aff my junior year,but that's about it. Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. I think you should be in the direction of the resolution. I think you should slow down a bit and explain your advocacy. The 1AC shouldn't just be pre-empts to T. ROB and ROJ are extremely important.
FW/T-USFG-I think that fairness is an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model.A good TVA is a good way to secure my ballot.
Speaks
You start off at a 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. If you chose to read straight from your computer with no analysis whats so ever, you will not be doing so well. If you chose to speak extemporaneously, keep flow, signpost, and keep me engaged then I will be happy to reward you with better speaks. +0.1 if you can make me laugh in one of your speeches. If you want something to gage speaks off then here.
20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile.
27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30.0: excellent; top speaker quality
Other
I'm fine with death good, but not in a weird way. IVIs are super underutilized. Keep track of your own time. I appreciate overviews.Paper debate is dumb. Impact calc is always good.
i've debated two years. you can win with t but if thats the only thing you win on I will not Vote in your favor. i like rather bizarre cases. I will also vote in favor of whoever has better evidence or more evidence. in my eyes topicality is a weak argument to run in general.
I look for logic and common sense arguments.
I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.
The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.
I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.
If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.
Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.
Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.
Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.
T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.
K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.
Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.
If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.
If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.
Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.
Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.
Be kind, have fun, learn something.
Quinn Largent pronouns She/They
Nat Circuit policy/LD debater at Olathe East 2020-2023
Email: largentquinn@gmail.com
Email me questions, please.
Tech > Truth. Unless told otherwise.
Junior year i was a 2A/1N running a deluze queer aff and most of my 1nrs were T. senior year i was a 1A/2N where we ran a Socialist plan aff/us heg good aff and most of my 2NCs were set col. So pretty flexible in whatever Strat u want. I adapt to you not other way around.
im like a year older then yall and still having my thoughts about debate shifted everyday so please post round me if u think I’m horribly wrong.
TLDR:
just because im Tech > Truth doesnt mean ill vote on anything. I will NOT vote on problematic arguments. yes this is kind of arbitrary. to try and catch the vibe of it Death good cause wipeout chill. death good cause life is meaningless. BAD. i wont vote on cops good inequality good. (This list will be made bigger more morally abhorent arguments i see) you catch my vibe now.
there are no rules of debate just guidlines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and ill vote for it. things like clipping good may be harder to win but are possible. (if you do this to just overpower your opponet who is a novice or is still learning your speaks will be effected and possibly give u a loss)
Debate is unsafe this is a fact i cannot be convinced of otherwise. we are plagued with racist homophobes sexist you name it. i wish to try and fix this fact. so i will vote on out of round issues as long as there is a level of proof.
if someone i trust tells me you are an abuser or groomer etc bad thing. i will do everything in my power to vote you down. i do not care if you blow the opponent out of the water you are not winning.
i default to an offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise. I look at the offense vs the defense against it and make a decision based on that. This doesnt mean i wont vote purely off defense if the defense is a 0% chance the aff solves ill vote neg on presumption
Specifics for adapting in round:
----- Logistics/Presentation -----
Speed is fine. but if asked to go slow due to hearing aversion go slow. and slow down on tags/anayltics.
i am open for spreading Ks tho no matter if its due to disability or you just want to.
extend your arguments this means you have a claim and warrant and what that means for the round
Call me whatever I really don’t care.
Put me on email chain or wtv ur using.
i will also auto vote for the other team if they make accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded.
Im pretty expressive in round. i try to limit this but who knows if it looks like im vibing im prolly vibing and vice versa but ill vote on args that frusturate me all the time just win it.
i dont get speaks ill start from a 28.5 and go from there.
If i can tell you who won ask me questions.
----- Plan AFFs -----
I have experience reading soft-left AFFs (native water rights on water), big stick AFFs (OCOs on NATO), and both (UBI on Fiscal redistribution)
just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.
I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues). There is zero risk of case, especially with how bad plan texts are getting.
in policy V policy rounds debate is just a game i think if its not please tell me that and what that means for this round.
JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument.
By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff.
----- K AFFs -----
have experience reading them (deluze queer aff on nato and set col/ablism on fiscal redistrubution).
K aff vs FW: i just dont believe the args that the affs interp will kill debate pick a more reasonable impact make it contextual to this round etc. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw. Fairness is an IL. just yelling the round is unfair means nothing to me what does it being unfair means does it means its harder for you to win if so tell me why. most convincing aff args on FW ---- Turning FW that uses the affs lit basis> Counter Interp > WM that uses the affs lit basis > WM that has an explanation on how you meet their interp > Turning FW that is just K affs are good > WM thats two words. > Dropping it.
ROB/ROJ: these are diffrent to me they arent the same(If the round makes them the same tho ill evaulate it as such) ROB means what my ballot should be doing when i vote. ROJ is how i weigh and view the round that is taking place
KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.
explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.
----- T -----
EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY
I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)
Limit/ground >>>>>> Topic education > predictability > precision
You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho.
case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary.
i default to competing interps.
Affs extned you actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact.
----- CPs -----
Condo: ill vote if u win it. i went for it to much in HS
perms: i am not the best judge for a deep run on counterplan competion. Dont just say perm sheilds the link please explain what that means and why it matters.
Neg: have a net benefit.
theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bads. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team
----- DAs -----
NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.
There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.
------ Ks -----
More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.
I am decently well versed in K literature. I have read biopower, capitalism, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, statecrafting, decolozation, Setller colonialism and queer theory. However, it seems that the way authors are read in debate varies from the source material, and from round-to-round, so explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.
You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA
I don’t care how generic the 1NC is as long as the block contextualizes it. If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.
K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it.
In a round it's important that the aff team fulfills the Burden of Proof, so make sure the Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are clear.
I like counterplans and DAs, unless they're generic, if they are generic you have to prove to me that generic is good.
Don't run topicality unless the case is actually untopical, I don't want you to run it as a time suck argument, I'd rather you talk about things that actually matter.
If the aff team drops any offcase arguments, that's an automatic loss for the aff.
You can be aggressive in cross examination, but don't be outright rude to each other because that's not going to persuade my vote.
Make sure to be clear about what you're attacking and where your arguments are going on the flow.
Background: I debated for 4 years in high school (Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2007-2011) and 2 in college (KU 2012-2014). I coached and worked at debate camp during that time. I've judged occasionally for the last few years and have not done any work on the 2023 topic prior to the start of the season. I appreciate explanations of topic-specific acronyms/context and warranted explanations of theory/other debate jargon. I am quite familiar with domestic policy issues related to economic security, particularly at the state level related to tax policy, antipoverty programs, and early childhood programs.
I love debate and am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best. I appreciate thoughtful discussions that reflect hard work understanding the topic, detailed comparisons of evidence and warrants, strategic decisionmaking about which arguments to advance, and debaters who enjoy the activity and treat their competitors with respect. I really enjoy good case debate.
Compelling defense can definitely persuade me to assign zero risk to an advantage/disadvantage/other impact. I might be less compelled by try-or-die framing and more open to weighing incremental changes or systemic impacts than other judges with my background. I'm especially looking forward to what that looks like this year when discussing how economic policies could meaningfully impact people's daily lives.
Winning debaters should tell me how and why I should make my decision. If you were writing my RFD for me, what would it say?
If you have not described to me in some detail what your or your opponent's evidence says and why it matters I will not call for it or read it after the round.
Particularly for debaters who enjoy kritikal debate - If you find yourself using a lot of debate jargon when answering cross-ex questions or during your speeches, you might challenge yourself to simply communicate your argument in a way that someone who is not familiar with debate could understand.
I am happy to listen to arguments that do not involve plans. That said, when I debated, this was not the style of debate that I preferred or excelled at - currently, I strongly believe that both incremental policy progress and the activity of policy debate are worthwhile. I am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best; please do help me understand why your proposed role of the ballot is a good one and preferable to the opposing team's interpretation. I expect that debaters who successfully take a less traditional approach to affirming the resolution will be prepared to create clear structure and organization as they respond to arguments and frame the debate.
Please add me to the email chain: aqgress@gmail.com
Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com
They/she
BVN 23 -> KU 27
Brief summary of my thoughts -
Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with buzzwords.
Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I'll + .2 speaks if you make the analogy
"Like a road, it goes both ways". I don't like death good.
Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool
Normal Speaks:
27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?
28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away
28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good
29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament
Inflated Speaks
28.5 = baseline
28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh
29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good
29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament
Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author".
FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.
Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.
Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.
Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.
Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.
Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore I am a condo god. But otherwise read whatever.
Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate
Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.
Background:
4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)
4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)
1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)
General In-Round Info:
Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.
LD (Highschool):
Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.
LD (College) CX (Highschool):
*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.
Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.
Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.
Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.
Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.
I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.
That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.
Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.
I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.
Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv
Tell me why anything you are reading in the round matters, don't just rattle off cards. That is key to clash for me.
Disadvantages this year are in desperate need of uniqueness, tell me how the Aff plan itselfis going to cause the impact. I don’t mind Kritiks, just be aware of the weaknesses inherent in putting one forward in the round.
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.
When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.
Tabula Rosa
I've judged hundreds of rounds over 30+ years.
You should run any arguments that you see fit in the round. Below is my paradigm, but don’t feel like you need to follow it to a science. Debate is your activity, not mine, so do it your way! Simply explain the importance of voting on your arguments!
- Stock Issues: Stock issues are necessary in my opinion, especially with a policy affirmative.
- DAs: I love DAs. I think realistic impacts are better just because they cause debaters to think realistically. But, if you run a far-fetched impact, I still think that there is some weight to it.
- CPs: Good argument. I want to see a net benefit or an exclusive CP (just let me know why we need the CP instead of the regular plan).
- Kritiks: NOT familiar with K lit, but have ran K’s in the past. If you run one, explain it thoroughly; I will vote on it if it is a good one. (I am okay with you treating me like I am a lay judge in regards to the K)
- K-Affs: Again, I’m not super familiar with K-Affs so treat me like I have zero experience. I could see myself voting on a K-Aff if it talks about the resolution. If the K-Aff is saying “debate is bad!” then I am not likely to vote on it.