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!

qualifications: I'm on my 3rd year of high school policy debate now. I've been to JDI for 2 years now. I've state qualified for 2 years now as well.

I consider myself to be Tabula Rossa but I prefer debates over Ks whe

Tabula Rosa on the content of arguments but I do favor the persuasion aspect so I like performance over the content.

Adiel Garcia(he/him)

Add me to the Email chain: 124070@usd230.org

SHHS'24

I have debated cjr, water resources, and now emerging technologies.

Overview

Tech ≥ Truth (ifykyk)

Run whatever you want as long as you understand it and explain it well. Be good people.

Judging Preferences

I default to policy maker unless told otherwise.

I'm probably the best judge for policy v policy, policy v k, and to an extent 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 default to competing interps. If you want me to default to reasonability tell me why that is better.

DA-My favorite argument of all time. By themselves they can be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way. I will accept generic disads.

CP- They need to be untopical or else both teams are advocating for the aff. I'm fine with delay and consult cps.

K-In terms of K lit, I'm mainly familiar with Cap,Orientalism,Security,Imperialism and some Foucault. You need to have an alt and win the fw debate in order for me to give you you win on the K.

Theory-I kind of love theory debate more and more. Run it if there is only a legit issue. Aspec and vagueness are acceptable. Also Condo is good

On case-I love a good on case debate, run it if you can!

K-Aff/Performance-I've ran K-affs before but by no means am I an expert. If you chose to run one please explain it in great detail.

Speaks

You start off at a 27 and go up from there. If you chose to read straight from your computer with no analysis whats so ever your max is around a 28.5. If you chose to speak extemporaneously, keep flow, and keep me engaged then I will be happy to reward you with better speaks. +0.3 if you start the email chain before the round starts and +0.2 if you include analyticals in the doc. +0.1 if you can make me laugh in one of your speeches.

Other

Don't be mean in debate. Anything that is racist,homophobic,sexist, etc will be rejected and you will lose the round with low speaks if you run any of those arguments. Provide trigger warnings if needed. I'm fine with death good. Keep track of your own time. 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.

Hi Im quinn largent I go by she/they pronouns

I do varsity debate in high school for Olathe east 2021-2024

Tech over truth

Don’t be racist homophobic sexist etc.

Put me on the email chain: quinnnb431@gmail.com

TLDR: you can run anything you want in from of me from basic case to wacky Ks and T

ONLINE: my camera will be on i prefer if yours on to.

I flow off what is said not the docs.

PLEASE CLASH you should be responding to your opponent directly IE they say this we say this

Spreading is fine just instead of full speed slow down on analytics to like a 7/10 cards go crazy idc

Case: do it please im good for all types of impact turns link turns etc. im good for wipeout and other such args here.

DAs: Im fine with generic links but I would like to see more specific links but as long as you contextualize its fine

CPs: PLEASE MAKE SURE THIS IS A COMPETIVE CP by that I mean it solves for something the aff doesn’t IE ur da or has an internal net benefit. This also means the perm cant solve you can win the cp is good even solves faster and better then the aff, but that doesn’t mean that it is competitive ask me questions before or after round if you want more clarification.

T: I love T I ran it all the time this year and went for it a bunch I get it. The def can be really dumb ill still flow it. Fairness can be an impact or not the debate is to be had. T needs impacts.

K: LIT ive read is queerpess afropess cap and set col along with some psychoanalysis. i read a k aff so I get Ks a decent amount. Don’t try and just out jargon your opponent explain ur k you should have sometype of overview in the block or 2ac.

MISC: be nice I don’t care what u call me EVERYTHING CAN BE AN ARG idc what it is ill flow it (excludes racism homophobia good type args death good args are fair game) misgendering if called out by the other team = L same thing with saying slurs. DROPPED ARGS ARE TRUE IDC HOW BAD THE EV IS OR IF THERE IS ANY AT ALL

PLEASE ask me questions I would love to help ask me after round it can be questions about the round paradigm or debate in general.

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 2022 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 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.

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.

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.

Please add me to the email chain: aqgress@gmail.com

Debater for Blue Valley North High School

Currently a fourth-year debater

email chain- novdebatejudging@gmail.com

she/they

Policy stuff -

funny stuff but I'm not kidding - if you make a your mom joke, or deez nutz joke your speaks will not go lower than a 28.5.

How I do speaks:

If other judges are inflating then I'll alter mine to fit the inflation

27 and below = strike me next time

28 = avg

28.1-28.6 = I'm a fan

28.7-28.9 = You're okay in my books (this is good)

29-29.5 = omg you're stellar ???? but this doesn't mean pref me, I don't give higher points to teams I like, infact it's the other way around. I am more critical ????

If other judges don't inflate I won't either

27 and below = strike me next time

27.8 = bare minimum

27.9-28.2 = avg

28.3-28.5 = you'll probably make it to an elim round

28.6-28.9 = you'll probably make it to a late elim round

29+ = omg I'm a fan

if you want a 30, you need to either win on a ethics issue, or blow my mind away which tbf is easy.

Tech over truth

Topicality/FW - For policy debates on topicality I'm fine with anything, but I tend to err aff if you don't provide a case list. If you provide a case list + a topical version of the aff, I will vote negative. For K aff v Framework - I will probably vote aff if you don't have a tva as well as answering the DAs they read on FW. K aff teams, I wouldn't pref me for now as I'm not the most familiar with the lit except for Cap, set col, and security. But as long as you explain the K aff to me, I'm willing to try to understand and vote for you. Fairness is an impact in my books, but if you make the arg it isn't, you have to explain to me why it isn't. Other impacts I'm familiar with.

DAs - I like em a lot, I'm a 1n/2a, so I extended them a lot. You need a link story, impact calc really matters, thumpers are important. Turns case analysis are huge for you. Aff side wise, cult of specificity is your ally. Explain why the aff specifically doesn't link ev wise, logically, etc.

Counterplans - Don't say "cp". I like theory, I like cheating cps and perms, I like creative counterplans. I don't judgekick unless you tell me to. You probably need good solvency advocates.

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. Though I have voted for extinction many times, I really wish more people ran wipeout as a counter. ;)

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

Email: 124206@usd230.org

4th year debater, tabula rosa

Don't spread