I 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- he/him

Debated 4 years of Policy and 3 years of Congress at Spring Hill, Kansas (2020-2024) (CJR, Water Resources, Emerging Technologies/NATO, and Economic Inequality).

Assistant policy coach at Millard North (2024-)

adieljcg05@gmail.com and millardnorthpolicy@gmail.com

Top Level

I don't know about IPR as much as you do

I flow on paper in line-by-line format with my computer open, but I don't flow from the doc. I still expect debaters to be clear.

Truth>Tech. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate arguments like "nuke war good" or T on a very topical aff, but rather I won't vote on arguments such as blippy theory shells, hidden a-spec, and "colonialism good".

I default to policymaker if not given framework.

I've judged everything from policy throwdowns to k v k, but feel most comfortable in Policy v K debates.

I won't evaluate things that happened outside of the round. It's my job to judge the debate, not a debaters morality.

People who have influenced me: Will Soper, Quinn Largent, Victor Thoms, Dylan Sutton, and Ian Matuszeski.

Argument Specific

T-I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability, explain what it looks like. T is never an RVI.

DA-They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way.

CP-I think every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type net-benefit. I need an explanation in the 2NR over what the CP does and how the perm can't access the NB. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans.

K-I've ran abolition, governmentality/biopower, imperialism, orientalism, and sett col. Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. 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 not my favorite. You should read case in the 2NR if you plan for going for a K. Read framework too....duh.

Sidenote on K-If you are reading arguments about an identity that you aren't apart of, I'm going to need you to explain your relationship to the lit. We need to educate ourselves on the roles that we play on in certain basis in literature.

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.

On case- I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Re-highlighting and quality check of cards is something that is almost becoming extinct, do more of it. Wipe-out and spark are fine.

K-Aff/Planless-I ran a borders K-aff my junior year at some tournaments but that's about it. I think you should be in the direction of the topic. If you plan on reading a K-aff in front of me, I should be lower on your sheet. I think that providing a good C/I with actual authors and creating an interesting model of debate is very persuasive in response to T.

T-USFG/FW-Clash is the most convincing impact for me. I consider fairness as an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model. Being specific with your offense is persuasive and good. A good TVA heavily convinces me.

Speaks

You start off at 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. What determines you getting good speaks would be things such as signposting, warrant analysis, and in-depth debate. I will dock -.2 speaks for each time you ask what card the other team read or stopped at. FLOW!

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

Congress

I did this event religiously once policy season was done. I was state champion in Kansas as the PO (2024), PO at NCFL finals (2024) (11th in the nation) and semi-finalist at NSDA in both House (2024) and Senate (2022). I have also written legislation that has been debated at NSDA Nats. I pay a lot of attention to presentation. Clash is important. Don't get gaveled down. Amendments are fine, but I'm not the biggest fan of amendment speeches. I evaluate POs based on their ability to know parli pro, control the chamber, and not mess up.

PF

Everything from the policy paradigm applies here. I come from the policy world so I'm fine with going prog (theory, identity Ks, etc). Weigh the round well and you should win my ballot. Both teams should be disclosing. If you don't properly disclose I won't be afraid to drop you. Quit saying "de-link" just say no link. Also, quit using/saying "scope." Use time frame, magnitude, and probability. If you utter any of those two words, I will -.5 speaks.

LD

Everything from the policy paradigm applies here.I'm more familiar with trad LD (value and v/c). However, I think I would be best to judge LARP or K rounds given my policy background. For phil, I'm only familiar with Rawls and Hobbes. I'm not sure how I feel about tricks, but it's probably safe not to run them.

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: They/Them/she/her (dont screw up pronouns for people its a 1 time freebie before im dropping you but theory can be read at any point)

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present talk to me about KCK debate we have great scholarships.

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 12/10/24)

EXTED YOUR ARGUMENTS PROPERLY ive sat in too many debates where im voting on presumption at this point because aff simply are just extending the Internal link and expecting me to understand why thats bad like yes Econ collapse is prolly bad but you need to tell me why its bad and please extend your arguments properly this means anytime you make a claim IE Econ is stable now you need to be asking yourself why IE Econ is stable now since we are seeing inflation go down steadily past months. the only way ill vote on an internal link is if both teams agree that the internal link is agreed IE Innovation is a good thing if both teams agree its a good thing even if it doesnt have an actual impact ill vote on who resolves the internal link the best.

DONT TRY SHAKE MY HAND PLS I FEEL SO BAD SAYING NO

Trad LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

TLDR: Tech > Truth. I'll adapt to you.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have. (seriously if you think I just dropped the ball lmk)

Read ur rehighlighting dont just insert it this is a communication event.

Novice debate:just be nice to each other debate how you please and I will give verbal decision and feedback feel free to ask as many questions as you want about the round or debate generally I will always answer to the best of my ability

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you.

Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, Inequality good, any theory relating to ones appearance or clothing. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add) I will literally vote on anything else. Break every rule u want just defend it and win.

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not. so I will vote on out-of-round issues. (prefer proof being had because im pretty convinced by the other team just going you can't prove it)

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy how you debate doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love it because i know what its like to have judges that hate the style you love so they don't try to judge it. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges. like its your debate not mine who cares what I think

All thoughts below are pretty much meaningless rather then showing you some unconcous biases I may bring coming into the round but ive voted against them pretty often so far.

Specifics for adapting in the round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or whatever ur using.

I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

Speed is fine go as fast as you want ill clear u if I need to --- I do flow on paper tho Im stubborn and refuse to move to a computer so pen time is cool this means not having 70000 different anayltics in 2 second I can't flow that fast.

I have gotten more annoyed over time about open CX the longer ive been in debate. its Fine for a couple questions but I dont like it when it just feels like one person is awnsering every question. the lines arbitrary but we all kinda know what I mean. (this will only hurt speaks not the round)

----- Plan AFFs -----

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues)

vagueness Is a real arg. plan texts shouldn't just be the res. if we are going to pretend to be policy makers lets make a policy.

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.

For soft left affs --- you should have a small adv that everyone knows is true and a bad thing and then a massive framing page it will make your life 10 times easier

LD affs: if you defend res --- you better have fire link debate or should focus on I/L stuff imo --- less generic your advs don't really change how easy it is to get a link just makes case debate outside the impact level harder --- if you read Plan text everything above applies.

----- K AFFs -----

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw.--- i think a lot of aff and neg teams don't do enough turns case analysis against both sides. doing that will make my ballot a lot less frustrating.

how negs should go for FW: just dont have a generic FW make it contextual to the round or the aff. less generic the better

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. I dont fully understand no perm arguments in these rounds but hey if your winning on the flow due to concessions pop off.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

Teams should be doing very heavy method explanation in front of me. presumption ballots look really good when the aff can't actually defend the method in cross or can't give a consistent explanation. explain what ur method looks like out of round in round or wherever ur method would take place.

Neg teams reads counterplans and DAs there normally are pretty good against some k affs. and often underutilized especially in LD.

LD K affs: a lot of y'all affirm the resolution through K lit this is fire --- I think these affs should have a top level theory that answers everything DAs/CPs etc. if you affirm the res then critique the state if they are the actors in the res you might be screwed because you will definitely link back 95% of the time. Negs against this shouldn't change their off Strats if they affirm the res they will link so go for it. I do think K v K is a really underrated option against these affs because they still affirm the res their k lit prolly links back. Link back args are super underused and underrated.

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently

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. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep.

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appreciated

i default to competing interps. but ive started to understand reasonability to be a viable option when paired with why debating the specific T the neg running is impossible.

----- CPs -----

Condo: I'll vote if u win it. this does not mean I have a preference for less or more advocacys run none run 30 I do not care. win the debate is all that matters.

Treat perm do the CP like a t debate when defining words meaning you get this perm why is that good just reading two different definitions without comparison means nothing to me and forces judge intervention prolly for the neg since the aff presented the arg in the first place.

Neg: have a net benefit. with good explanation on how you are mutually exclusive --- either perm links to da or just how the CP and aff can't work together.

Don't just shoot perms at me IE don't just go perm do both. say perm do both --- (insert explanation on how this works)

Judge kick: if you want me to. say it and have a warrant (needs to start in the block at the latest so we can actually have a debate on it) if you don't want it say why it's bad and have a warrant. I default to not judge kicking

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bad. 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 just make warrants. Ive ran and won on delay and consult cps. I've also won on theory for why these are bad.

----- 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.

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly Link to us paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

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.

The FW page shapes the rest of the debate It shifts how I view the round please explain how either you fall under the FW and how you operate on FW

I am decently well versed in K literature. this shouldn't shift how you debate in front of me just cause I know what you are trying to say doesnt mean you are saying it.

Link: after doing K debate for a while good K teams will devolpe more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independent reject teams/links because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained in how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

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

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. FW can be used to get links to the K

LD paradigm

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: tech > truth when I began debate I thought these were bad and hated them. now i realize teams should just win the debate against them on 1 of two levels.

Theory: they shouldn't be in debate and why

Debate them: why the theory is untrue bad etc.

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

PFD paradigm

just debate ill flow and ill vote on offense. i don't really see how this is much different then policy minus a few things. Tech>truth ill vote on anything

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts.

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it.

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators and me to prepare myself

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3 (4 if we count pity laugh) this doesnt mean I dont find it funny I just dont audibly laugh often,

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it. THE MOST CRINGE PIECES CAN BE FUNNY IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

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 topic-related jargon.

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 won't vote on death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

27.5-27.9 - lost the debate and didn't do well

28-28.5 - you either won or lost but did okay

28.6 - 28.9 - you won and did well

29-29.5 - you did won, did great, will probably make it to elims

29.6-30 - you won and will probably 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". I'm so sick of watching debates where both teams just say "they dropped this so extend it" - what is "it/that"? I will cap your speaks at 27.9 if you do this.

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 or generic topic related links. 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 evaluate it. 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. I also think that teams need to clash more on standards and impacts.

Theory - if you go for it, do impact calc and contextualize it to the debate. I will not be convinced by pre-written blocks unless somehow the other team fumbles that badly.

Misc. - I really care about clash heavy debates, if it feels like both teams are just passing by each other without clash, I will be visibly annoyed and not giving anyone good speaks regardless of win loss. 2nr cards and 2ar cards are RARELY justified, I prefer not to deal with them.

Background:

4 years of policy and LD in high school

4 years of NFA-LD & parli in college

1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in college

3rd year of coaching high school policy.

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. I think definitions are exceptionally important in value debates. Don't just say you value you "justice." Tell me what "justice" is.

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 is 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 for that.

Debating as a practice for evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important to me 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 abovealternative 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. This is true, at least, for arguments operating in a pre-fiat frame.

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 rebuttal 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 and wipeout at least once. What can I say? I snorkel in the abyss.

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.

Hello all!

As a former high school debater, I understand that this is your activity. As a result, I would encourage you to run whatever arguments you think work best in the round.

That being said, there are certain arguments that I understand better than others. I mostly debated stock issues, DA's, occasionally CP's and Theory, and always finished out the round with impact calc. I understand these arguments and their function in a debate round, but I know the other arguments to a lesser extent (K's, K-affs, etc.).

Side note: try to keep the round respectful; I think debate is so much better when both sides are having fun.

I hope you all have a great round!