I have several years of experience in policy debate, so I've played the game.  I consider myself open-minded, and do my best to come to a debate room to judge fairly and listen carefully.  I do flow every round, and clash is very important in order to win my ballot.  I would like to specify some things however:

Topicality-  I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless it actually is necessary.  

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues.  

Speed- I can typically tolerate high speed, but do not encourage it.  As long as you are persuasive and logical.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss in my ballot and a referral to tournament staff.  I trust debaters to not welcome this into this sacred space of education, so I hope not to see any problems of this kind.  

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.  Have fun and good luck!

Girl just debate lol

add me to the email chain

nikki.aqui8@gmail.com

Assistant coach for Lawrence high school

debated for 3 years in high school and a year in college.
I am comfortable with spreading, but lets be real its been a few years since I have debated and it may be in your best interest to slow it down for me lol-- I will never clear you

I believe in quality over quantity, reading as many off args as you can is just going to take away from the having a substantial learning opportunity in the round.

Not much else to say other than have FUN !!!!!!!!!!!! WOOHOOOOOO☆*:.｡. o(≧▽≦)o .｡.:*☆

Lansing High School '21

University of Kansas '25

please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- I haven't done much research on the water topic so explaining acronyms will be helpful

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- I am not familiar with a lot of K affs so you should overexplain the mechanism and what/how the aff solves.

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

- probably not the best for k v k debates

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- I am not very well read, so try to explain in simple language rather than buzzwords

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

- aff gets to weigh their impacts

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

They/He

Add me to the email chain - aidenbasore@gmail.com

Lawrence Free State High School '21

KU ChemE '25 (debating)

I am a 2A in college however in high school, I was a 2N all four years, primarily going for Ks, but went for topic and ptx disads a little too.

Top Level

Do what you do best. I will try my best to adapt and be unbiased

Judge instruction is important

Read rehighlightings

I haven't done much research on this topic outside of cutting some K cards - explain acronyms

Be FUNNY, make jokes we have to be together for 2 hours make it enjoyable, your speaks will be boosted if you are.

Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc result in a loss with 0 speaks

You should give trigger warnings!!!!

Policy Affs

- Fine, read whatever.

- I love sketchy edge of the topic affs. Be creative there are fun ways to read these affs.

- Don't have a preference between soft left and big stick, however, I didn't read a big stick aff my senior year.

K Affs

- They are good, have lots of experience with these.

- Find creative and interesting ways to answer these affs, not just the same generic strat.

- Presumption is a winnable strategy, explain your method.

- PICs out parts of the aff are my favorite.

- I can not emphasize this enough, you should actually engage in the aff.

Fw v K affs

- Been on both sides of this argument a lot. In high school, I primarily went for a clash impact and spent a lot of time thinking about how to beat fw as well as go for it.

- It's an argument I will vote on.

- Fairness isn't an impact, but if you win it is I will vote on it.

- Clash and Topic education are the most persuasive impacts, but you need to explain why.

- Almost guaranteed I vote aff if you don't go to the case page in the 2nr

- You are probably getting not high speaks if you go 1 off fw, or 2 off fw, and a ptx da that you concede for a link to fairness in the block.

- a good counter interp that solves some neg offense is pretty hard to beat imo

- I think switch-side debate is not a good argument

- the 2nr doesn't need a TVA, but it is a really good way to get my ballot

- Affs should stick to 2-3 good, well impacted out, maybe even carded disads. Don't just shotgun fake disads and go for what they drop.

K v Policy

- This is the debate I am most experienced in and enjoy watching the most. The past few years, these have been almost all of my debates. This doesn't mean you should give less explanation on your theory. Pretend I don't understand.

- In high school, I mainly read queer theory and in college mainly cybernetics. I'm comfortable judging any K though, but if you are a pomo team you will need to explain more.

- Aff teams should USE THEIR 1AC

- You get links to any part of the 1ac, if it's in the 1ac it's fair game.

- You don't need an alt in the 2nr

- Hyper specific links to affs go a long way

- You should have a robust explanation of the alt and if it solves the aff

- Perf cons annoy me a lot and justify the reps of the aff. If the 2ar goes for perf cons bad justifies perm do both, I don't see a world I vote neg.

K v K debates

- These debates are super fun to watch, however, can get messy quick, keep the flows clean, and give judge instruction in these debates

- Perms exist in a method debate

- Make your theory of power clear

- The debate will probably be decided on who frames the perm the best, and if the alt solves the aff

T

- I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Das

- Fine, specific links are preferred over topic links

Cps

- This is where I lack experience, probably have gone for a counterplan under 10 times ever, but don't be afraid to go for one, I will be able to evaluate the debate.

- Ngl I'm going to be lost in a complex competition debate.

- You need a solvency advocate and it should probably be specific to the aff.

Theory

- Anything other than condo is a reason to reject the argument

- perf cons are bad

- Don't be afraid to go for theory if its mishandled, don't just spread blocks back and forth though.

Random

- If you are losing don't give up, its time to pull out the tricks, go for condo, go for some meme its not over til its over

These people influenced my thoughts on debate: Kelly Thompson, Amber Kelsie, Beau Larson, Reed Van Schenck, Michael Shelton

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

I debated 4 years at BVHS. I am much more familiar with KDC style of debate. if you want me to make a good decision within your best interest there is a couple of big things that would be useful to keep in mind.

Relevant background

I have a Bachelors in Information Systems and a Masters in Information Technology. If you make arguments surrounding the tech space please do not twist the authorial intent of the work to better fit your argument. I understand that this can happen when approaching any topic to bolster your argument but I will be acutely aware of how tech arguments will actually function around the case. While I will not let my own biases overrule how the argument is evaluated in round, it will likely change how much weight I give to the opposing team if they were to question the validity of your arguments. That being said, I don’t expect you to have a comprehensive understanding of everything, I just want you to understand how my background might impact my decision making process.

Speed

Speed is okay, if you consider yourself to be pretty fast I’d say I could handle you at an 8/10 on speed. I am more familiar with slower rounds. Definitely don’t go too crazy wit it tho. I will be flowing, I wanna be in the speech drop and/or email chain. If i mishear anything I’ll be sure to ask. nwclark3000@gmail.com.

Topicality

I have to say this policy topic has shown me that I have a high threshold for the negative when evaluating the validity of topicality arguments. Don’t get me wrong I like topicality debates and I really enjoy a solid line or argumentation in this regard but I’ve noticed I seem to be flowing those args more in favor of the aff teams this year so be weary of this.

K’s

Suffice to say I was not graced with the ability to evaluate K debates very well. That being said, I have enjoyed learning and watching these rounds play out whenever they magically appear before me. I think it’s interesting and fun to watch how teams approach it. If I’m in a round where a K is being whipped out I’m probably the odd one out in a panel or smthn and honestly more power to you if that is the case get the bag frfr.

Misc.

Try to be nice in cross. Theory args are aight, counterplans are gas, generic disads are fine as long as link is good. If the round is a total mess then impact calc can get you the W. Run something crazy that I have never seen before. Please extend the warrants of your cards not just the tags or I will cry and have a panic attack and then I will explode and then die and then nobody will win the round and you will live the rest of your life with my blood on your hands.

This is me when you decide to not kick out of a weak argument that everyone knows isn’t going anywhere and spend 2 minutes in your rebuttal inventing new reasons that I should vote for you on it: Link

they/she/he

lansing '24

jack.corrigan.debate@gmail.com

top level

tech > truth

open cross is fine

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more off case. don't sacrifice the depth of args just to read more and spread your opponents thin. this should be educational, so don't rely on tricks to win rounds

spreading is fine, but make sure that you are clear and everyone is comfortable with you spreading. clarity is important and should be prioritized before trying to spread faster than you are able to

debate however you are comfortable and make accommodations for to make the activity safe and inclusive. i'm familiar and versed in policy and k debate – read the args you want and i will judge them

i will try to evaluate the debate as a tabula rasa judge / promote best practices in debate unless given a different role in the round

judge instruction is important – tell me how i should vote, i won't do the work for you

pls be nice to everyone in the round, this should be educational

i'll write a lot of feedback on the ballot, but if you have further questions feel free to email me abt it

disads

the more specific the link, the more i will appreciate the disad

evaluate the story of the disad and how it affects the rest of the flow

impact calc is important, esp to tell me how i should evaluate the impacts

counterplans

needs to have a net benefit in the 2nr, i won't vote for a counterplan just because it "solves more" – it is meant to be used to solve some/all of the affs impacts to lower the threshold for a neg ballot on the disad/offense that the cp doesn't link to. win a disad/offense to the aff plan and then use the counterplan to solve some of aff's impacts to make the disad outweigh the affirmative's advantages (e.g. if aff has a climate impact, a disad that says the aff causes nuke war likely wouldn't outweigh the climate impact, but having a climate advantage counterplan that solves climate change would zero the aff's impacts making the nuke war impact against the aff the only impact left which definitely outweighs at that point)

perms need analysis and warrants on both sides. i won't be convinced by "perm do both" without an articulation of what that world would look like and my threshold for neg answers will be lowered, but if the 2a articulates what the perm actually does, it would increase my threshold for neg winning the perm.

kritiks

you should win a link to the aff plan, research practices, etc. however, i can be persuaded to not evaluate a link based on how you debate framework

do analysis between the flows about how the k functions (e.g. what your theory of power means for the aff's impacts. are they non-unique? does the k outweigh?)

tell me if the alt solves the aff or why it doesn't matter that it doesn't

perms need analysis and warrants on both sides. c/a what i said abt perms under counterplans

t

you need an interp and should have a warranted violation, don't just assume everyone else knows what model you are promoting is and how aff doesn't meet it.

read standards/voters in the 1nc shell and don't add new ones in the block. if you can read several other off case alongside t, do not shorten them all. don't sacrifice depth to spread your opponents thin

your interp = your model of how affs should defend the resolution. i won't be happy judging a t violation that your aff doesn't meet. if it is a good model, why don't you follow it and why does everyone else have to? (doesn't apply for novices debating on the caselist, just make good args)

procedural fairness is an internal link, not an impact. tell me why unfair debates actually matter (e.g. education or burnout impacts probably result from skewed debates). if you win fairness as an impact, i will vote on it, but it is tautological and should be used as an internal link, esp if your opponent goes for an education impact, fairness is an internal link to fairness probably so argue that you winning fairness precludes aff from accessing education impacts

Austin Davis (he/him)

run whatever u want.

explain ur args.

tell me why i should be voting aff/neg.

give impact calc.

dont be problematic.

thats it.

have fun ????

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Please include me on the email chain. kdeneaultATpiperschoolsDOTus

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructives. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that. 

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

I’m a head coach.

I did not Debate in High School or College but was in Forensics.

I’ve judged a handful of elim rounds and more than twenty prelim rounds on this topic, in about a dozen tournaments, but I don’t know the exact count.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is ok, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate and have clear points

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignore or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do not find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality and decorum.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

People seem to misunderstand this so I'm putting this at top to make it clear. I will vote on any argument because I am tech > truth. Run what you are comfortable with. These are just my general thoughts about debate. Don't run an argument that you think I would like just because. If you don't know how to run it properly you probably won't win.

hudsonhrh7@gmail.com put me on email chain or email me any questions

General:

He/him. I debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years. I'm now an assistant debate coach at ONW for 2 years. I competed in both policy and LD. Debate should be an activity for everyone, and if you prevent that from happening in the round, I will vote you down. I have done a pretty even mix between DCI and KDC, but I would definitely prefer to judge a DCI style round.

I am fine with speed but I would prefer if you slowed down for tags, analytics, and theory especially because I'm not debating anymore.

I'm tech>truth maybe too much

I hope I can make my biases clear. Even though I say there are arguments I do and don't like that doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments, so please run whatever you are comfortable with because that will make the most educational round for all of us. I will do my best to adapt the debaters in the round. So, if you prefer to run policy arguments that's fine too. If you run weird arguments go for it. However, I will not vote for any racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia good or any similar argument.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm before the round!!!!

Disadvantages:

I never really used these in flow rounds when I debated because I don't think they are good arguments compared to other things that could be run. That doesn't mean I don't know a lot about DA's. I would run some pretty specific and weird disadvantages when I debated. Generic links are okay but can be easily defeated by a smart team. I'll listen to politics disadvantages but this is not the round I would like to see. Theory against DAs can be cool.

Impact turns:

I like impact turns because I feel like they are underused. I ran heg bad a lot and ddev sometimes.

Counterplans:

Rarely used counterplans but when I did they were usually really abusive. PICs are fine. Delay and consult counterplan are less fine and you should watch out for theory but still acceptable. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Theory is fun I will vote for anything if you do it right.

Kritiks:

I ran one-off ableism a lot, usually attacking language, representations, and generic links to the topic. I also am very familiar with fem, intersectionality, Nietzche, and cap/neo-lib.I have read some Baudrillard, psycho-analysis, and afro-pess lit so I understand most of the concepts, but don't expect me to be familiar with all the different niches. I am comfortable judging all types of rounds.

Doesn't need an alt if you can impact out how the K turns the aff, wins framework, or gives me a reason to ignore the affirmative impacts. PIKs are acceptable especially for language/reps Ks.

Floating PIKs are maybe abusive but you can win the theory on that by using your K as an offense or any other way but it is still a risk you have to be willing to take. Please explain your alt and how it solves. The ballot can be alt solvency if needed and explained. Severance on perms is a voter but be careful how this interacts with other theory-based arguments you have already made on why we shouldn't be looking at education or fairness etc.

K-affs:

I ran a k-aff with a plan text that would either fiat my alt or I would kick plan later in the round after reading a K. Your plan doesn't have to relate to the resolution, but it would be preferable if it does. If you are negative against a k-aff your best strategy with me as the judge would be to run a K. I feel like lots of teams put themselves in a position where they are defending policy or the state action which the aff team probably has prepped against. Running a K makes the framework debate easier, will catch the team off guard, and can turn the aff. I do think switch side debate can be good. Not too familiar with performance affs but I am very intrigued by them if you want to run it please do

Topicallity:

I love a good technical T debate and will vote on T even if the plan is perfectly topical if the neg has good impacts.

I default to competing interpretations. I belive your interpretation is your model of debate and that voting on T is meant to prevent certain affs from being run debate wide. I don't think a definition needs to be contextual to the resolution. If by the end of the round it produces the most [insert T voter here] than I will use that defintion to evaluate the round.

I feel like a lot of teams think that a dropped standard means they won T. Think of it like conceding the other teams solves for 500 lives when you solve for 1000 lives. If you don't articulate how that conceded standard acceses the T impact the most you won't win the round. For example if they concede a limits standard it would be smart to go all in on depth>breadth. It is also good to impact out voters, ie people quit debate which means education is decreased writ large. K teams feel free to impact turn T thats always a fun time. I will vote on time skew RVIs, but I also believe that topicallity is not an RVI most of the time unless they are running multiple interps. RVI's can also be abusive. Basically, I am open to any theory argument if you can argue it well.

Theory:

You can run theory agaisnt anything if you believe hard enough. That being said you have to have a good impact that is clearly articulated by the need of the round

I love theory arguments and would like to see an in depth debate here. I will vote on blippy dropped theory arguments if all the parts are included (need to see some resemblance of interp some standard and voters) and it is thoroughly impact it out in the round. If you drop a theory argument your best way to win is weighing your inherent voters and trying to claim education gained (or some other voter) outweighs the education lost. Theory spikes aren't used as much in policy but I think they are cool and test a teams ability to flow and respond to every argument. Might be abusive tho. A lot of the stuff I said for topicallity applies here.

Only place I intervene is obvious egregious clipping and won't allow new args in the 2nr(unless justified) or 2ar (never allowed even with justification unless justification is in previous speech then it wouldn't be new arg)

Stock issues:

Inherency/harms/significance is only a voter(most of the time) if the plan is already happening. Please impact out why this is a voter because the affirmitive can still generate offense off of advocating for a plan that already exists. I think circumvention arguments are cool and will vote on them if they are sufficient (don’t think durable fist applies to everything the aff will claim). Solvency deficits are good and underused arguments and remember to bring them up when weighing impacts.

Framing:

I don’t default to a utilitarian framework for evaluating impacts, and don't believe magnitude outweighs probability by default. I don't think I ever ran a extinction impact unless I had to throw together a crappy DA because the judges in round made me. Since I see myself as more of an LD debater, framing debates are very important to me and I think they are underused in policy. I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to.

Framework:

I made lots of framework arguments when I debated and I will defintely vote on them. I like a good role of the ballot. It shouldn't be self serving, but if the other team drops it then I guess it is over for them if you continue to meet the role of the ballot as the debate goes on. I believe that the affirmitive and negative should be viewed as a body of research and that plan focus is bad. However, like any argument you could argue me out of this. I think education is more important than fairness, especially in terms of a framework debate. Fiat is illusory is a real argument because it is true. I'd like to see clash on out of round impacts as much as possible whether it is fairness, education, violence, or some other impact. I think fairness should be used to show how education is lost or how they further an out of round impact.

You can use framework still in round with normal affs and no K's. If you did this I would be pretty happy. Honestly don’t know why more teams don’t do this

Final notes:

DEBATE IS A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE. To reiterate, I am very lenient about what you run, but if it doesn't include certain groups in the debate space or blames certain groups of people you will not like the ballot at all.

Please have fun that's all I really care about. Don't make the debate bad for another participant.

Email: ahinecker1@gmail.com

There is no magic way to win a debate, nor a "correct," way of debating. Be persuasive and make arguments that you see as strategic and communicate them effectively. Debate in the end is a communication and research activity - show those elements in the debate and use them to frame and forecast how I will make my decision. Defend what you will defend, just make sure that it is articulated in a manner that can justify a ballot. I enjoy debates that show a lot of ingenuity and predictions in your arguments relative to your opponents. That being said, I love impact turn throw-downs and risky strategies. In the end, you should default to a strategy that you are comfortable with. The only specific I care about is counterplans - I have become increasing persuaded by theory arguments because I think counterplans are getting absolutely out of hand with what they can do. That's all, just remember, this activity is only what you make of it, and it is about more than just winning. 

I'm a lay judge with no prior experience in debate. Please talk slowly and explain your arguments. I do not recommend high theory unless you can explain well. Don't expect me to flow the debate, try to make eye contact and make sure to make each of your points clear. I don't care about how technical you are, I believe that truth is much more important. Also, I am a policy judge, I don't run k's very well so don't expect me to connect the dots for you.

Please be respectful or you will lose speaker points, have fun.

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.

General: I am a parent judge with little judging experience. I did Debate and participated in Forensics in High School so I understand the basics of what you are doing, however this was a long time ago. That being said, here are a couple things to keep in mind:

I am familiar with none of the core arguments. Work with me.

I don’t know anything about the HS topic, so please explain acronyms.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

SME '21

KU'24/5

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:) email > speech drop

About me: Currently a Sophomore at KU Honors studying Political Science and Global&International Studies with minors in Public Policy and Latin American&Carribean Studies. This is my second year coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School (graduated in '21). I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judging debates in both areas. I am also currently coaching teams who read both types of arguments.

Research interests: Russian foreign policy, Latin American Politics, and environmental policy.

Top Level: Be kind to each other and read whatever you like! I think condo and pics are generally good and theory-based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains, quirky disad/cp debates, and just overall efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage. Also just do what you want I do not have huge preferences, my job as a judge is to adapt.

Pet peeves: "3,2,1 starting NOW", talking over your partner, wasting time, not logging into wifi until round start time and then taking forever <3

• Let me know how I can be helpful to you, judging is a privilege.
• Evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded
• ORGANIZATION
• Clipping/cheating/any type of bigotry will guarantee a loss
• Disclosure is good (pls do)
• I will not vote on things that happen outside the round
• I like quirky disads and efficient impact calc
• Tech > Truth
• Pretty neg biased on most theory - reject the arg not the team
• Keep track of your own prep, although I will also keep track and keep teams accountable
• Framework should be contextualized to the round - don't just speed through general blocks
• Have fun! Debate is a super competitive space and I hope I can be helpful to you! Always happy to chat after! <3

T

• I'll default on competing interps
• TVA's = good
• predictability >

DAs

• good
• the more specific the links the better

CPs

• condo is good
• pics good process meh
• impacts of solvency deficits

Ks

• slay
• err on the side of over-explaining
• engage with them!! - generic blocks with no contextualization to the debate will not win you the round especially if your fw arg boils down "k affs are bad for debate"
• roj args are valuable
• cite specific parts of the 1ac that link
• go for whatever impact you prefer
• planless affs - I'll vote for you, prove that your model of debate is the better one
• How does your lit base interact with others? How does your discourse better the debate space?
• only need to extend a couple of links in the 2nr

Feel free to email me if you have any questions always happy to help the best I can!

I have been debating for 6 years, first in middle school then high school at Sumner Academy. My default judging paradigm is as follows. I am pro-K, DA and CP, I don’t mind outlandish arguments (nuke war, etc.), and I will only vote on Topicality if it is either inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or if the negative makes a persuasive enough argument (though less likely). I am all about persuasion, so while I can keep up with faster paces of speaking, I need clear articulation from the speaker, as well as analysis of cards and their role in the debate. 

Ultimately, I want both teams to assume I have no previous knowledge of the case (though still realize I know the technical aspects of policy debate), and guide me through why your case outweighs the other team. Next, I assume that every argument is true unless it has a clearly defined counter-argument, try your best to answer all arguments (Even if that means using one card to answer twelve arguments). I also need analysis of cards besides simply reading them. If one team reads evidence but doesn’t analyze, while the other team reads a weak piece of evidence but provides analysis, I am more likely to vote for the latter. Don’t talk at me, convince me that your side is correct. Do the work for me.

Additionally, if you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static. YOU have the power to convince me to completely change my paradigm, and I implore both teams to exercise this power. 

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Hello - Is this thing on?

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 26 years - I have judged debate (as and assistant Coach) for 3 years.

I like slow or fast speaking (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me)

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government of works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time is does not.

Hello,

I am the Assistant Debate Coach at Leavenworth High School.

I'm a pretty relaxed judge when it comes to preferences over what you're going to run.

Give an off time road map so me and the other people in the room know the order of your speech.

I find CX one of the most important parts of the debate so try not to secede time. Ask pressing questions to poke holes and expose their arguments. As for the AFF, make sure you know the answers rather than contradict yourself and have the NEG reveal you don't know what you're talking about. Try not to ask basic questions, such as definitions, if they seem to understand their case as it wastes time.

I'm fine with spreading, just remember to share your speech with me so I am able to follow along efficiently. Speak with confidence and energy in your voice as it brings out the passion in your arguments.

Follow all the rules from the NSDA handbook and also KSHSAA Speech and Debate handbook. If your opponents are breaking the rules, address it.

Running T's and K's are good, just make sure they are effective and not just something of a last resort.

Make sure to address all arguments. A lot of times with novices I see them drop arguments and it is usually what loses them the round.

Have fun and be respectful to each other. This is an educational experience and nobody should be demoralized because of bullying during a round.

If you have any questions for me about my paradigm, just ask me before the round begins!

dustin.lopez@lvpioneers.org

Parker Mitchell

Director of Debate and Forensics - Wichita High School East

Updated for: NCFL (Summer 2023) - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but not necessarily the only or biggest impact. (Analogy to show what I mean here: Economic collapse is an impact but I will also vote on DDev). I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur), repeated problematic language etc. is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute, but it is a bias I have noticed. This operates primarily on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

12 years of experience in debate. 2 years as Head Coach/Debate Teacher at Wichita East (2021-2023). Formerly: 4 years of debate for Shawnee Mission East (2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (2015-2020). 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (2015-2021). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC), Asian Debate League (ADL, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

50+ competitive rounds

Topic Experience (College):

I don't anticipate judging college debate this year. If I do, I will be very behind on any topic specifics.

Topic Specific Notes

Most affs on this topic are quite bad* and most negative teams appear to be going for the wrong arguments against them**.

*(lack full, offensive justification for actors in their plan) **(not challenging this failure to justify the actors of the plan)

I'm good for T.

I enjoy Security debates... if done well. IR theory debates are a awesome when they're good, but excruciating when bad. They're usually bad. Security teams - read an external impact (get creative). Policy teams, know your theory beyond just Putin Evil.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

***Fair warning for Trad teams (NSDA/NCFL): I think there is a lot of value in traditional debate. If you go slow or talk about the stock issues, I have no problem engaging you. I would prefer you engage your opponent more offensively to increase chances of getting my ballot but don't fundamentally change how you debate for me.

However, if you devote a significant portion of your speech time to talking about how debate is dying because of these pesky kritiks and people talking fast ruining the educational value of debate I am uninterested, annoyed and likely offended on some level.

My students and I have personally benefitted significantly from policy debate that includes all of these things. There is an immense value to both traditional and "progressive" debate and these things can coexist. I am from the state of Kansas where you have to be good at both to succeed (and we have, in my opinion, the healthiest numbers in the country), so examples of debate flourishing in your state "because we're traditional" are completely unpersuasive.

Your speaks will be tanked and I will not vote on this level of the debate. I will still consider the remainder of the debate regardless, but you will have wasted your time. I want to emphasize, this does not apply to all critiques of spreading or fairness arguments against kritiks. An ableism critique or accessibility requests on this level are of course important, interesting and effective arguments. Fairness standards as a part of a framework argument against a kritik are also totally fine. There are plenty of ways to make logical and persuasive critiques of the way we function in debate without reading cards from the 1990s written by people who wanted to make debate great (white/male) again.

**new speaks note** my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

Disclosure sidenote: In my opinion, you should disclose at a minimum cites of your 1AC and all 1NC off case/case offense on the wiki. The following practices are insufficient: listing emails, bare round reports or a billion unsorted open source docs. I had a section of this paradigm intended for TOC teams that I thought had embarrassing disclosure practices as they are disclosing open source but no cites. I still believe this is a bad practice, but I am removing my autovoter on it for NSDA/NCFL as I think there's bigger fish to fry at these tournaments (teams not disclosing at all).

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Head Coach of Mill Valley High School, Kansas current 

Head Coach of Jenks High School, Oklahoma 7th year

Head Coach of Manhattan, Kansas 13 years

I perfer that you use speechdrop than email chain, but yes put me on the email chain shawnrafferty521@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

Don't go fast I see no point in that.

I know I have a CX back ground so you may beleive that I will like/handle CX style arguments in LD, I won't. When I am a LD judge I want to judge LD not policy the same can be said if you ever have me as a PFD judge I want to see a PFD round.

With that being said I want to hear a value, and I want to hear how it will be applied to supporting the resolution or negating it. Whatever you run I want to hear how it applies to the topic specifically. I think this is a good topic or at least 100 times better than the policy topic for this year.

Policy Paradigm

Don't go fast, read a plan, tell me what you want me to vote on in the 2nr and 2ar

sighposting is always a good idea tell me where to apply the agr not just which peice of paper to flow it on.

I will probably make a decision rather quickly. It doesn't mean that I am not paying attention or evaluating your arguments, I usually just don't need a long time to sort things out.

If you want to read something like Bataille or Baudrillard, etc. I might not be the best judge for you. I don't read the lit, and I think debate is ultimately good, so you might have more mileage if you pref someone else.

I think this topic is better than the last 2nd years so look forward to hearing around about it.  

Debated for 4 years at Lawrence High, best KDC debate team in LHS history, pfd expert, I <3 Eliot Manning

J Matt Hill Invitational Champion (2021) ????

Please add me to the email chain if you're doing that: bradleyschrock@ku.edu (what if we just used speechdrop instead teeheeoohhoo)

Lies>tech>truth

But also truth>tech if the argument is lame and it gets called out for just being dumb

Some notes that are really just complaints I have:

-CPs need a text (in the doc please) and I think perms do too (I'll still listen to it if it doesn't have a text but I think it's annoying and bad). This is primarily so that everyone has one set statement to go back to when debating about the logistics of perms and CPs later in the round, it holds each team to an advocacy position.

-If your disad doesn't have an impact I don't care about it

-If you're running a k we probably both don't understand what's going on.

-I'm actually super cool so just run what you're comfortable with and have fun

-I won't do extension work for you because I really think it's something any debater can and should work on and since I don't debate anymore that means I don't have to work on it but you are therefore cursed with that burden. This means that I will vote on arguments that might have been weak but went unanswered.

ƪ(`▿▿▿▿´ƪ)

｀(^▼^)´↑

I come from a 3A high school where I debated for three years and participated in forensics for four.

K's - I don't understand them. Please either spoon feed them to me or don't run them at all.

Generic DA's - Link it and convince me of the link.

Impacts - PLEASE no extinction impacts. Make it realistic so it's harder to right them off.

Topicality - Don't be stupid with it.

Speed - As long as everyone (including yourself) can understand what you are saying we are fine while reading cards. Please slow down during analysis.

USE ANALYSIS. The evidence is important so read it but then tell me why it's important.

AFF - GOOD POLICY IS KEY.

NEG - PROVE WHY POLICY DOESN'T WORK or STATUS QUO BETTER.

I am a Tabula Rosa with a default in Policy.

Lansing High School '21

University of Kansas '25

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

Pronouns: she/her

top level

Do your thing. I'll resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible. I'd rather you read something you enjoy/feel comfortable reading than something you dislike reading, I'll do my best to adapt to what arguments you read.

If anything on my paradigm isn't clear or your have questions - feel free to ask me before round or shoot me an email

Planless affs:

You're good to read one in front of me. I'm best at adjudicating and giving constructive feedback in debates with policy affs because that's where most of my experience as a debater was, but I enjoy watching and evaluating planless affs.

Make sure you're explaining the literature/process that your aff takes

Being in the direction of the topic is important

Framework: 2nc/2nr's should interact with the aff at some level, ie. don't just read generic uncontextualized t-usfg blocks. Give a detailed explanation as to why the specific model/aff is worse for debate. Most debates that don't contextualize framework arguments to the aff end up sounding like "K affs are bad for debate". It's easier to win with specific offense and much more difficult to convince me that any and all planless affs are bad for debate.

Fairness and education can both be impacts (unless argued otherwise), but I personally think fairness is argued best as an i/l to education

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations

TVA's are good to help explain impacts and help contextualize what offense you lose under the aff's model

Slow down a little bit on analytics

Disads

Da/cp debates are usually pretty fun and probably my favorite to watch

Specific links>topic links

Not much to say here

Counterplans:

Default condo is good, but can be convinced otherwise

Process cp's are fine, but I eer aff on theory

Judge kick is fine, but the neg has to make the argument for me to judge kick before the 2nr

Condo is the only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team

2a's - please utilize going for theory more, negative teams can be pretty abusive when it comes to fiat - even if you don't end up going for it, having it in your arsenal is good practice and might save you from losing to a random process cp one day

Kritics:

Assume I don't know your lit, make sure you are explaining your ev and contextualizing it to the topic/aff

Not the best judge for kvk debates

Line by line>long overviews

Other:

Judge instruction is important - your 2nr/2ar should outline what you want the decision on my ballot to look like

Be kind to everyone in the round! Debate is a fun and educational outlet for people - don't make me intervene because you've made someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe in the debate space.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

I have been an assistant coach for around 10 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

Employment: 6 years as an attorney and 6 years as an assistant debate and forensics judge.

Experience: 2 years high school debate, 1 semester college debate at KU, 10 years of judging including judging policy at EKNSDA and KCKNCFL and judging PFD at NSDA and NCFL, including PFD finals at NCFL 2019.

Arg Prefs:

Topicality is rarely an acceptable argument, unless in extreme cases. When it is run, it should be at the top of the flow and is an a priori issue for me.

Generic disads are always acceptable. Just don't expect them to be super important to my flow if the impacts are outrageous or the link story is weak. Regardless, if they are on the flow, aff must respond.

Topical counterplans are almost never acceptable to me, but if you can make an argument why it would be necessary in this round, tell me.

K's are acceptable and philosophical debate is encouraged, but avoid nonsense philosophy with outrageous claims. Aff still has to respond to outrageous args, but debate weighs against the neg at the outset with outrageous args. Reps args work with me.

Big impacts are disfavored but not terminal to an arg. They simply don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Give me voters! Tell me why to vote on any argument, weigh it against other arguments in the round, and do the work for me. Leave as little as possible up to my discretion/analysis so that you remain in as much control of the round as possible.

Style Prefs:

Speed is fine, provided there is competent analysis and your enunciation is clear. Speed does not work for me if your enunciation/volume is poor, or if you are just burning through cards without considering what the cards are actually saying/doing any analysis.

On-case in the two is fine with me, though I would like a preview of it in the 1N.

Give me more detailed roadmaps than "everything on the flow."

I have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

Hey y'all!

LHS '22

Two years open + two years DCI

KU '26(not currently debating)

Add me to the email chain or ask questions @ Hviloria71@gmail.com

or give me the code if you're using speechdrop

GENERAL INFO:

I will listen and vote on anything if you can convince me, literally!

Run what you feel most comfortable with, idc if thats a simulation K or 50 states, I'll do my best to adapt ;)

Don't be rude! Don't say anything problematic, but that should go without saying.

Just have fun and do whatever you want, EXCEPT run 8 off

I definitely feel like I was one of those people who got too caught up in the round and didn't have as much fun as I should've, so please make jokes and have fun, I promise you it's not that deep!!

Tech > truth

I want to try and prevent judge intervention as much as possible, so judge instruction is rlly nice!

MORE SPECIFIC THINGS:

Speed:

I'm okay with speed, but I'd rather have you be clear than to go fast so just make sure you are aware of what is articulate and what is not(I'll clear you if I think its absolutely necessary but I don't like to lol).

slow down on tags

If you're going to spreading a pre-written block or something- either go slowww or send out your analytics, spreading your opponents out of the room isnt cool!

T : I can't say I am terribly good at T debates but I understand the basic mechanics

• default to competing interps
• I really enjoy when people impact out standards and voters
• Against a K aff, TVA's are super helpful!

Ks: These are probably what I'm most familiar with and what I love to watch! I mainly worked with cap, set col, abolition, and a small amount of queer theory. However I am not familiar with what K ground there is on this topic. That being said, don't assume I completely understand everything lol.

• the MOST important thing for K's is the link and impact! The link needs to be well articulated, that means you're pulling lines from the aff's case, using in-round reps, etc to be the most specific - if there isnt a lot of link work it'll make the K debate a lot harder for everyone involved. Also make sure to impact out everything, explain why the aff is bad for debate, bad for the world, and plz say what the role of the ballot/role of the judge is!
• I don't think the alt neeeedsss to solve, but still do work on it - I think conceding the alt can be strategic in some rounds(like in a situation where you believe the link and impact substantially o/w the case) but you should be prepared to defend your methodology.
• LINE BY LINE <3
• All good K debates also have a good framework debate, so if the neg doesn't bring it up in the 1NC then it needs to be in the 2ac so that I can know how to evaluate.
• If you do not plan on going for the K, kick it *first thing* in the 2nc. Don't go all in on certain advocacies and representations if you don't plan on defending them for the whole round.

Planless affs/kicking the plan text: I have no problem with it. Just be thorough and explain your methodology/praxis(ie why is not having a plan critical to your methodology? or how is kicking the plan text better for debate, stuff like that)

Disads and CPs : These are cool! I don't have a strong preference towards either of them. Specific links and impact calc :)

Theory: Theory is cool! I'm so vulnerable to voting on condo...like If a neg team pulls out like 3 k's and a cp and a disad or something the aff should be ON IT!!!

I probably left some things out so PLZ do not hesitate to ask questions!!

email chains > speech drop

luke.vu0@gmail.com

debate however you want to

LD Paradigm at the bottom

Notes for online debate
If you raise your pitch while spreading, please go slower so you don't peak or modify your gain filter so your audio does not cut out
Prefer cameras on including prep

If you have a fun strategy feel free to run it in front of me - this excludes exclusionary strats

Good for speed, just make sure you're clear, if I clear you and you don't change then don't be surprised if my flow misses an argument you made

Evidence quality and ethics are highly valuable to me, although I typically let the flow decide what is "true". That being said I have a low threshold for ignoring bad cards, if your opponent reads bad cards jump on this. If you don't, I won't do the work for you.

Additionally rehighlighting their evidence will always boost your speaks and be very good at zeroing the argument that card makes for them. However, make sure you are right about what you point out.

feel free to post round if you don’t think my decision was clear

Topicality -

Default to competing interps (this means you need to say reasonability and extend it through the 2ar)

Topic specific definitions > general definition > noncontextual definitions
I can be persuaded otherwise but this is what I default to

I enjoy evaluating T debates and would consider myself good for them.

T USfg -

Negative teams need to answer the impact turns by being specific about how their impacts implicate the affirmative model's solvency. Your education/fairness arguments mean nothing if it is key to something that the affirmative is critiquing.

Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate, broadly saying debate is violent or procedural fairness is key are unpersuasive absent a reason why the other team's model does not solve for your impact or exacerbates it.

Clash is probably the most persuasive impact for me, but I will also vote on education and fairness as impacts

Affirmatives need to define the role of the negative

K Affs -

Teams that counter-define the resolution and create an interesting model of debate will more often than not win in front of me. I find full impact turns to T less persuasive relatively but will still vote on them.

Any affirmative that is willing to defend itself and its purpose in the debate space may be read in front of me. Advocate for what you want my ballot to represent and I will typically use it as such unless you lose framework.

Theory -

Have a high threshold for most arguments as a I believe they should typically be reasons to reject the team

Disadvantages -

Turns case arguments are important to me, especially when comparing extinction impacts

Soft left affs should look to win the framing page with more than just "extinction never happens".

The best way to zero a disad is with evidence indicts.

There is not always a risk of the link/impact and I will typically read the cards surrounding those two most thoroughly in my decision

Counterplans -

If you are going to read cards on the counter plan it should have a solvency advocate in the 1NC, otherwise I will be easily persuaded by theory

CPs based off 1AC evidence are some of my favorite to judge

I lean neg on the question of sufficiency framing so comparison of the world post-aff vs post-cp are very important to me

Kritiks -

I would say I'm a good judge for any K

I think that the block should have a significant amount of link explanation, therefore I'm more empathetic to grouping blippy links in the 1AR as a way to deter the link shotguns that seem to have become more popular. This is because too often I see teams throw out 5 or 6 links in the block to have the 1AR drop one they apparently aren't prepared to go for in the 2NR and end up collapsing the debate down to the one argument which was covered. (this will tank your speaks as a 2N)

Framework is key to how I evaluate the alt and what my ballot represents - teams can still win absent framework and it is a viable 2nr in many cases if you're ahead on the link debate

On that note, affs should try to isolate whether the alt is material or not as early in the debate as possible, this informs a lot of the debate and letting the negative run away with this will lose you debates.

LD -

Quick Prefs

K - 1
Trad/Policy - 1
Phil - 2
Theory - 2
Performance - 3
LARP - 3
Tricks - 4

I enjoy watching debates where debaters can show off their knowledge, I care less about overviews and think that your line by line intrinsically makes the claims your overviews will and it is more persuasive to have me reference your line by line than your overview.

Willing to vote on tricks and technical debates and the flow will often determine my ballot, however I'm not as good for tricks because I believe some debates over tricks are really bad, theory less so but they can become frivolous

Performance and LARP debates may need to spend a bit more time on judge instruction in the final rebuttals for judge framing since I lean towards framework in the context of these debates

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >>>>> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current)

Update for heritage hall -

In cx, if the non-designated debater for that cx is overstepping their role in that cx (e.g. if the 2a is answering all the questions in the cx of the 1ac) then that individual will have speaks docked. This has been a large problem in rounds that I have judged recently and I think it is important for the growth of both debaters.

Top Level -

1. Generally speaking I fall under tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie with portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time researching certain positions. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe should require judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

Topicality -

T debates are my favorite ones to judge, both v policy and v k affs. I went for T pretty exclusively my senior year in high school and have somewhat continued this into my collegiate debate career. I think there are a few things that I would like to see from teams when adjudicating T debates:

Have a robust explanation of what your vision of the topic is, the more in depth and specific that your analysis is goes a long way for either side. A lot of teams seem to end this analysis at, “leads to more in-depth debates,” without going into what these would look like and/or how your vision of the topic can access these debates. Limits tend do be a better internal link than ground, and I think it provides the best internal link to clash and/or fairness and has the best description of what literature bases would look like.

when doing the line by line make sure to both indict the opposing team’s interpretations and give me analysis as to why your interpretations may solve the ambiguity of their interpretation. Just saying, “our interp is more precise,” is not an argument, articulate why precision may broadly matters and go into the specifics of why precision in the context of a given argument specifically matters.

T v k affs, in these rounds I believe the neg tends to go for way too much in the 2nr, make sure you are picking and choosing, just because T may be one piece of paper the depth of it means you still have to pick and choose arguments (TVA vs SSD as well as impacts), going for too much often times does not allow for the 2nr to answer the depth of the aff’s arguments. Also make sure to contextualize your blocks to the aff and look for sources of offense that you can solve, generic blocks often fail to grapple with the overall thesis that the aff has in context of their offense. 2nr’s should always go to the case page or make sure to explicitly flag what parts of framework make it impossible for the aff to solve x,y, and z.

K affs –

These are fun debates to watch, I think both sides should look to be creative and innovative in these debates. Overall, I don’t think I have too much to say in context of the aff, just make sure you are somewhat related to the given topic. I think the best approach for k aff’s to take is to impact turn framework. I also think that some aff teams may get too caught up in the framework debates and may lose the story of their aff, I think always putting this on top is good.

I think neg teams under utilize the case portions of the debate, particularly the question of the ballot and alt solvency.

With neg strategy I think reading disads and counterplans can be strategic and often times indicates that you have at least looked at the aff. Framework is always a viable option. Method v method debates I think are fun to judge and seem to be underutilized in high school, however I think some aff teams let the neg get away with certain things, i.e. I don’t think white people should be reading settler colonialism, if you make this a voting issue, I will be compelled to vote on this argument. If one member of a team is does not identify as x identity then you should not read x identity’s arguments.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Politics disads, generic disads, and etc. All these are good and fine. I think when teams are doing ample analysis with the link and uq portions of the debates are what allows for one team to really get into a good spot. Link cards can kinda be shaky, and the aff should always point these our and more often times than not neg teams are more than aware of their shaky link and same is to be said with internal link scenarios. Making turns case arguments are always good, these can happen at the impact level but I think they are a larger threat when the link alone is able to turn case.

I really enjoy when 2a’s are not afraid to straight turn a disad or when 1ar’s impact turn a new impact in the block. Although these tend to be in the category of “late-breaking” debates these ones tend to be the most exciting because they keep everyone in the debate on their toes. In the situation of a 1ar impact turning the 2nr should not be afraid to read new cards to answer the 1ar. If you don’t have any answers to a disad don’t be afraid to impact turn it, like I have said these are always enjoyable

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans and typically side with the aff on anything that competes of immediacy and/or certainty. Like I said at the top, read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with. Just because I say I side with the aff on things like process/consult counterplans I often went for these in high school and understand that they can be strategic, so if you win the theory debate, I will not hesitate to vote on these.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Sufficiency framing is quite annoying because I find it really redundant. If you are winning a net benefit I will vote for the counterplan even if it only soles x% of the aff. In my opinion, I believe that most judges default to solvency being on a sliding scale rather than a yes/no.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what matters and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Not much to say here…

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.