Hey, I'm Cella and I use she/they pronouns.

I'm definitely a bigger fan of forensics, but I understand how debate works and can appreciate a good speaker. I'll probably take notes so please put me in the email chain (marcella.l.allison@gmail.com)

Have fun and be kind, that's the most important thing. Talking over each other is so not cool, be respectful, please.

Good luck and have fun!

Lillian Ardis, They/Them

Debated for four years at Salina South high school and currently debating for KSU. (Ask me about KSU debate or just KSU in general!)

I am also currently the assistant debate coach of Abilene high school.

Add me to the chain: lardis.debate@gmail.com

Top level: Do what you want, you do not have to adapt to me, just have fun. If you're sending out docs include analytics!! (especially if you're spreading) It allows me to follow everything much easier, and allows for a more cohesive RFD.

Can I run whatever thing? Sure! I really don't care. You do you. It's probably better that you read what you are comfortable with because that will help both of us understand what's going on in the round. I think debate is yes, a communication activity but you are not going to have fun if you're not reading things you enjoy.

Evidence: You can dump evidence, but I am a sucker for analytics & indites. Doing open debate the majority of my high school career really makes me believe that you cannot solely rely on evidence in a round lol. You are smart people, and can come up with your own arguments. Though, if you are cut clipping cards, that is an auto loss and I will stop the debate.

Speaks: Not that deep, I generally give higher speaks

Affs: get better link chains!!! how do you get from point a to point b? I see this with policy affs especially recently, but it is really hard to vote on nuke war, when I don't even know how you get to that impact.

Cps/DAs: Of course! Always always read offense in a round. I am a sucker for a DA + CP combo so feel free to read whatever.

Ks: I started reading Ks my junior of high school. The more I read them, the more I love them. I have the most experience with: cap, security, queer theory <3, abolition, rhetoric Ks, and some anti-blackness. That being said, I will not be happy with Ks that are run when you don't understand what you are talking about because, most likely, I won't know either, I haven't read your specific theory especially if its on this topic. If you're running a K you should be able tell me what I as the judge need to be looking at, or how I should evaluate the round. That said, just be able to explain what the K does, how it links, etc.

****I think one of the best things to do is to tell me how to weigh things in the round or how to vote. I think not only will this win you rounds, but it also easier to sign my ballot when I am told, this is what you need to be voting on in the round.

Overall: Just have fun! :))

washburn rural 24

ku 28

he/him

carson.bath6 @ gmail.com

update---please don't call me judge, i don't vibe with it

debate is a game, and i enjoy this game. i have engaged in both policy and kritikal styles of debate and am willing to vote on whatever, assuming that it is not racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. though i view debate as a game, this does not mean that i will not vote on arguments to the contrary so long as you win debate should be a form of activism or that the education we garner matters more than procedural fairness or clash. rather, everything in debate is motivated by competitive incentives, and my decision will reflect who i believe did the better debating. i think the best debates occur when you do what you do best.

tech > truth. to me, this means that i will attempt to minimize intervention and that all arguments are viable as long as you win them (excluding those outlined above). minimizing intervention also means minimizing how my predispositions to specific arguments influence the round. i do not enjoy it when a round becomes about what the judge wants to hear rather than what you want to debate about. many judges contend that arguments such as “death good” are harmful or a bad argument that you shouldn’t go for. i don’t care, and i think people should just answer it. if you believe that these arguments are bad, just win that death is bad and we should avoid it, which should not be difficult to do…

inserting re-highlightings is fine if you explain what it says and how that interacts with their arguments. if you don’t care to tell me what it says, why would i care to read it for you?

i will not evaluate things that happen outside the round. that is not my job and should be resolved with your coaches, their coaches, or if it is that serious, resolve it with tab. these arguments are not falsifiable and i am not going to make decisions based on whether or not i think debaters are good or bad people because i probably have no clue who you are.

flow the debate and i will flow your speeches. if you spend time answering an argument that was not made, but was in the doc, your speaks will be lower. if you drop an argument that wasn’t in the doc because you weren’t flowing, your speaks will be lower. flowing makes for better debates. i will also abide by my flow when making my decision and will not stop flowing because you told me to. i may not catch everything if you are reading as fast as you can directly into your laptop screen. this is not because i am bad at flowing or that i don't care to pay attention, but it is nearly impossible for me to understand you and write down what you are saying without pen time. because of this, i would prefer if you slowed down slightly in rebuttals. not answering arguments where they are made and trying to force me to look through my flows for you is a form of judge intervention. answer arguments where they are made.

i have no issue with speed so long as you are clear. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing your speech. if debate is online, i would emphasize clarity more than you usually would and go slightly slower. i don't need your analytics, nor will I ask for them; however, if your opponent asks for them to make debate accessible and you refuse to send them, i would think again.

if you are going to go for an argument about their author(s) being problematic or ev ethics, you should have notified the other team of that issue prior to the round. if you don't, i will still make a decision about the author or stop the round and decide whether ev ethics was violated but will ultimately be unhappy. you should try to prioritize having substantive debates rather than giving a speech no one wants to listen to and making me give an rfd that i don't want to give. debate should be educational and no one gets anything out of the round if it is stopped in the block because you wanted an easy win.

for this topic in particular, you should likely over explain the aff, disad, counterplan, etc. early in the debate because i am not researching the intricacies of ipr and have little background knowledge.

if you fail to read a complete disad, or argument in general, your opponent should not be expected to answer it as one. i don't have super unique thoughts about disads. specific evidence comparison for internal link chains and impact evidence will go a long way and make my life easier.

i won’t judge kick unless it’s in the 2nc and 2nr. that being said, i don’t really like to judge kick anyway and think you should just pick a winning 2nr. if you are reading a very technical process counterplan you better be ready to explain what it does and how it competes because i will not vote for an argument that i cannot explain.

you should do vastly more judge instruction if going for topicality and do more robust standards debating than you think is necessary. flag your offense and defense as well as your opponents and how yours interacts with theirs.

reasonability, i believe, is confusing to adjudicate. i do not understand what it means for an interpretation to be “reasonable” and it seems arbitrary. i need a bright line established for why your interpretation is reasonable and what it means to be reasonable to vote for it.

i went for colonialism a lot my senior year and i think that the best strategy for k teams is one that moots the aff. a fiated alternative with links to the plan loses to the perm too much for it to be preferable. my background in kritikal literature is almost exclusive to cap, colonialism, and security so if you are reading psycho, pomo, or most other kritiks, you should overexplain the lit because i don't have the knowledge to easily make connections or understand the kritik. something i have noticed while going kritikal arguments is that aff teams should try to justify their scholarship more. you can win that cap is good, heg is good, extinction is bad, or that consequences determine ethics and free up some time from the framework debating.

organized debate is best, and generally, i feel the longer the k overview is, the further the debate strays from being organized. please answer arguments on the line by line and do not assume the prewritten overview that you read in every debate will answer all of their arguments about your theory of power, etc. answer arguments where your opponent has made them and i’m fine. you should also spend more time on the link debate in front of me, i think that link specificity is very important. reading a single card about ipr broadly being bad for x reason or the usfg being bad for x reason means so much less to me than a detailed analysis about why the rhetoric they are using or the specific form of ipr they are increasing is uniquely bad.

planless affirmatives are good so long as the affirmative departs from the status quo and you win the framework debate. for method debates, i think teams need to be clearer about how the methods interact with one another. what i mean is, how should i adjudicate a method about changing debate v a method about changing global systems of oppression? you should be doing enough work to get there, and if you don’t it will be significantly harder for me to vote neg. best method v k aff is probably cap but i'm down to hear whatever. neg on presumption is definitely plausible.

if you have questions, email me or ask pre-round.

I am a 4-year senior debater for Lansing High School (she, her/they, them). I am well versed in tech, open, and LD.

For email chains: dayvend05@gmail.com

Disclaimer: I will give you an automatic loss for intentional bigotry. (Btw assuming people's gender is not cool) Just be good people. 

Cross-Ex is binding 

Note: I will be on my phone during prep to make it clear I'm not listening.  

General:

1. Discourse is reasonable and should be done before the round(file share is better) and disclosure theory is excellent.
2. I will default to judge instructions, if not given I will default to my own opinions(which is likely to work against you) While I will default to my own thoughts without instruction, I will not do any analysis for you. I.e if NATO is good, but I have zero explanation for what makes NATO good, then I will flow it but don't expect me to vote on it---consider me the technical judge
3. Speed can be a tool but only when still at a level reasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. I will, not clear you more than twice, if I have to, then your speaks will reflect that. That being said, articulation is everything(logic>tech>truth). Me being intimate with debate knowledge and argumentation does not give you a pass on articulating. (your logic needs explanation)
4. IMPORTANT: Consistency is key. You can win every argument on the flow, but if you drop crucial warrants in the last speech/change your advocacy, you will lose. 

T:

T is underrated. If you're the aff, you need a counterinterp and tell me why it's better. T isn't T without voters&standards; if you don't provide voters&standrads, I will not weigh T in the round. NOTE: Resonablity isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse. Failing to articulate this = :(. 

DA:

DAs must have 4 parts to be a DA(uniqueness,link,  internal link, and impact).

^DO impact calc and turns, easy ways to win the ballot and speaks.(OV>UV)

CP:

Competition theory is important. If a cp violates this and aff points it out, I will er aff.  Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the cp. Internal net benefit needs to be mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan, if the aff doesn't run theory. 

K:

I LOVE kirtiks. They are wonderful and can have important ethical uses, but the framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k. Do not run a K if you cannot articulate the alt. You must compare the world of the aff and the alt. The K must link to the aff and be competitive(I.e. running fem k against a fem aff won't work, unless you articulate it as a case turn).

I specialize in Fem, set col, cybernetics, tautology, anthro, and matrix. I am familiar with others, but do not assume I know the lit. 

EXTEND, EXTEND, EXTEND

K Affs:

I've dabbled with K-Affs since my freshman year and LOVE them. That said, I am not a  professional, so I need the K story to be clear and consistent. Strong offense and reasoning why rejecting the plan text is necessary.

Advocacy must be there and have solvency--advocacy statements are good. 

T is a generic neg strat against K affs so please spice it up and lean into something outside of your comfort zone. I won't disregard an arg just because it's generic, but K affs are good for debate.

Case:

I'm not keen on primarily stock issues paradigms, but if I'm put in a situation where a round forces my hand, I will become a STOCK issues judge. 

Neg should clash with every contention. I WILL BE UPSET if I have to vote aff. because the neg conceded Barry 17 which says the aff solves cancer by abolishing the death penalty. Get something on every flow and extend warrants(reading the tagline back to me does not count). 

I think human extension is a good, and funny argument and I personally love to run it. I will weigh it as a joke and possibly and rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns. 

ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING!

they/them

cooperelo28@gmail.com

default to what your coach tells you about me if you can

lfs debater 2021-

K affs- I've never read a K aff but as a 2N I've spent time understanding different common theory of power and methods - I like to think i'm able to judge a debate with one

policy- I prefer soft left affs because they are more interesting if that means anything to your decision making - that being said idrc about what aff you have just win the debate with whatever and have fun

cp- you have to understand what about the counterplan changes to be mutual exclusive to the plan - ie don't include all of the plan text in the CP text - this happens way too often - other than that try not to run cheato CPs - they are boring

K-I'm most familiar with cap and queer theory, but have some experience with afro reading, I also go for Ks in almost all neg debate I have, go with what you want, I want to hear it, and explain what it means. Identity Ks do NOT need an alt to win in the end, but it can help if they do. no you link you lose links. Also this is just my opinion but put more Jewish theory in EKNSDA - it's cool

DA-Uniqueness should be no more than one week old if it is older than that you have no reason to be reading it and will lose 0.1, and if you read non U arg that are older than the Uniqueness that they use, other than that I have no opinion - shout out Vorp DA though, if you read it your floor becomes a 27.1 instead of a 27 - just saying

T- I feel like this goes without saying but ONLY READ T IF THE AFF IS ACTUALLY UNTOPICAL. its no different than theory, give it more substance than a regular T debate and make sure you have real reasons for limits rants -- I'm not the biggest fan of topicality mostly because I find it boring so innovate as much as possible on the boring args

theory- make sure it links and have fun. I want to hear all the silly theory args as long as they are respectful to the other team and have imapcts!

speaker points rules

+0.1 speaker points for every skibidi toilet reference

-5 for any use of slurs :( ----(and auto L)

Hi! I'm a 4th-year debater

I'll be flowing the round and will look at evidence (put me in the email chain please! emmahefty0608@gmail.com )

I'll listen to pretty much any argument as long as it is explained and extended well. I'd rather you go for arguments you feel comfortable with than change your strategy for me. So run what you like and I'll follow! Novice debate is about learning and growing, so as long as the round/arguments cultivate that environment then go for whatever you'd like :) That being said, be nice and respectful to one another. I'm all for being assertive, but if you are rude and disrespectful I will definitely vote you down.

If you ever have any questions after the round, feel free to ask or email me! Debate is about making connections and learning, so never hesitate to reach out :)

Hi! My Name is Mackenzie Leece. (Pronouns- She/her) I am a 4th-year debater at Blue Valley West High school. Make sure to include me in the email chain: mjleece@bluevalleyk12.net

General: Make sure to always debate with a positive attitude and demonstrate good sportsmanship. Also, be aware of your audience/components in regard to how your argument might affect them. Bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated in the round and will result in you losing the round. So just remember to be nice!

Performance: I tend to vote for teams that confidently present their plan in a clear and enthusiastic manner. Make sure to read your plan with emotion so I understand the urgency of your plan. Also make sure to give roadmaps, overviews/under-views, and consistently make eye contact with me so you aren't just reading a bunch of info. Speed is not the most important thing to me when considering the winning team. It is more compelling to me if you can read a speech at a good pace with clarity and emotion.

Voting: I generally vote for the team that answers and combats all arguments brought up during the round. I vote for the team that efficiently presents/counters the plan with confidence and emotion. I don't vote for teams that are rude or clearly don't know the information that they are reading.

If you have any information that you think I should know please let me know. I will do what I can to make you feel comfortable in the round!

3rd year Policy Debater at Topeka High

I like to see engagement in the debate and clash instead of crossfire of cards from both sides. I'm fine with speed.

Don't be rude, as those comments may cost you the debate if they are offensive.

Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano

Current Affiliation: Kansas State University

Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.

List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:

• Real world impacts.
• Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
• Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)

List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:

• Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
• Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.

Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.

List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:

• Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Impact Calc.

List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:

• Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
• Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.

Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.

me

she/her. debating @ the university of kansas. debated at lawrence free state. coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow. aaronjpersinger@gmail.com. put me on the chain! have it sent before at or before start time, please and thanks.

tldr

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than small technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

policy

i learned how to debate in kansas and have spent my fair share of time thinking about stock issues and counterplans and disads. i coach teams that exclusively say policy things on the aff and neg. do with that information what you will.

my threshold for voting for dropped arguments has increased with the trend of teams not properly extending their affs/impacts to disads. yes do work on the line-by-line, but explain impacts and solvency mechanisms as you do it. i will not vote on things that you don't extend as a complete argument.

k

i have spent most of my debate career reading arguments about/in the veins of trans studies, queer theory, black feminism, anti-capitalism, sex work, and embodiment. i love good k debates, but really dislike bad ones that result from overadaptation.

i walk into debates with the assumption that the aff gets to weigh the plan and its consequences, and the neg gets links to all facets of the aff, including performance, affect, representations, etc. framework matters a lot to me and should be used to guide judge instruction if you want me to change the above assumptions.

link texture is good and helps tremendously in close debates...examples, framing arguments, turns case arguments, etc.

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

I've done debate for 4 years and have gone to KSHSAA state for two of them in the Open division. My style is primarily traditional, persuasive debate. Think of it like a courtroom, not a chess board. I will still judge heavily based on who wins the flow, but your skill as a public speaker will also play a role in if you win my ballot.

Arguments

Pretty much any argument is okay. I will catch any T argument, but if the T doesn't actually apply/make sense on a debate theory level, I may flow the T arg to the aff. Ks are also good, but you will have to do a lot of work to explain the K to me, b/c I generally don't run Ks in round. Role of the ballot is important to me in a K debate -- what does my vote do?

if you run a counterplan, make it unconditional. i don't buy that condo is good. that's probably the only argument I wouldn't bother running with me as a judge

Theory

i prefer tech over truth until it gets to very outlandish and obviously untrue arguments

cx is binding by default -- Anything you say in cross-ex WILL apply in future speeches

do impact calc on both sides -- if you can't explain the significance of your harms/impacts i won't vote for it. i am able to interpret pretty much any set of evidence you throw at me but if you can't explain it in your own words it will be harder for me to consider.

i will automatically shoot down any problematic behavior (racism or racist rhetoric, disrespecting pronouns/gender identity, etc.)

Head coach with 28 years experience. Entirely a policymaker who just wants what is *realistically* best for our nation and world.

1. I vote on your analysis of the evidence read in round, not on the evidence itself. Cards are jigsaw pieces, and it is your job to show me how they connect. I will not intervene and fill in the gaps with my own analysis about why a card or argument matters.

2. I do not do well with speeding and spreading; you may have to make a decision between impressing the other team or winning this round. I know that you have worked incredibly hard to get to this round, and I really want to understand you and your arguments. Please know that I cannot vote on arguments I cannot understand. Your brilliance is best revealed by the words I do understand, not the ones I do not.

3. Treat me as a member of congress who is evaluating a policy proposal for our nation.

4. All arguments are fair game, but if you cannot convince me of them (rather than just reading them), I'm as likely to vote on inherency as I am a kritik.

I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

Preferences and Background

experience: I did Policy debate for 4 years, Lincoln Douglas debate for 2 years, and I am currently in my 4th year of NFA LD at Washburn. (I placed in quarter-finals at Nationals last year, I don't say this to brag, I am simply saying that I have some idea of what I'm talking about).

Flow: yes, I will flow the round.

Speed: Fast is fine as long as you are articulating your arguments well, if I cannot understand you I will clear you twice, after that, anything that I miss will be counted as dropped on the flow.

extra: please be kind and respectful to everyone in the round, yelling or talking over your opponent will immediately deck your speaker points (the severity of this occurrence will determine the severity to which your points are decked). Absolutely no discrimination of any kind (racism, sexism, etc.) In the occurrence of discrimination, I will immediately drop the team, no I don't care if you should have won the round, I will still vote you down.

Policy

---Aff---

plan: Please have a plan text (advocacy statements work too for K aff's). unless you explicitly tell me how your aff solves for current damage in the space, I find it hard to vote for affs without a plan text.

solvency: you should have a solvency advocate for your plan, in the event of a "my advantages have their own solvency" case I will take it on a case-by-case basis, however, it is still probably best to have an advocate.

Advantages: honestly I don't have anything in regards to preferences on advantages, I have yet to see an advantage so outrageous that I have questioned whether or not to would vote on it. (this is not an invitation to read something that changes this statement).

Framing: I enjoy a good framing debate here and there, however, your aff doesn't have to have a framing argument. I do think however that a lack of framing from the aff leaves them vulnerable to having to adhere to negative framing, but it is not essential for the aff to read a framing to get my vote.

---Neg---

Topicality: Topicality is essential to ensure that debate is fair for both the Aff and the Neg. I will vote on T if there is proven abuse, however, I will also vote Aff on T for the same reason if the T is clearly an abusive time suck I can, and have been compelled to vote Aff on the T.

Theory/Rules: I like a good theory/rules argument. just make sure it is framed properly, and that you have the whole shell.

Kritik's: I do not mind a good K debate, that said I ask is that you understand what you are reading, I find it hard to vote on an alt that the person reading it doesn't understand. Especially advocacy K's, if it is immediately evident that the speaker is not understanding, or the speaker doesn't actually support the advocacy their reading I find it much less compelling.

CP's: Counter plans are a nice test of competition, just ensure that it is textually and functionally competitive. I personally do not have a preference on topical counter plans, I will not immediately vote a team down for having one, however, if a decent theory position is presented I can be persuaded to vote against a team for having one.

DA's: the same thing as Advantages, I really don't have much preference regarding DA's, just make sure it links to the plan.

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion: Please have a value and criterion, along with an understanding of how they apply in the debate. an explanation of why your value and criterion should be framed before or valued greater than your opponents is essential for this activity. In essence, the value and criterion debate is the cornerstone upon which the rest of the debate is based on. It is hard to win my ballot if you are not winning on the value and criterion debate. Even if the speaker is leaps and bounds ahead of their opponent it is hard to vote for them if the opposing team wins their value and criterion in the round, as it changes the framing of the entire round.

extra: the rest is pretty much the exact same as policy, other than speed, LD should be slow and persuasive, not fast. this activity is intended for depth over breadth. Leave speed for Policy or PF.

she/her/hers

yes i want to be on the email chain->aryanadb8@gmail.com

former debater / current coach for OE

run what you like to run lole

everything is debatable to me hence lack of concrete debate opinions in this paradigm. i feel like debate has turned into debaters changing their entire strat to adhere to the arguments that the judge wants to hear which leads to boring and stale debates in the long run. i want y'all to have fun and be creative! (->as long as everyone feels safe and comfy in round and in the overall debate space ofc)

only three things i ask for the rounds i judge

1.) be clear pls!! clarity>speed!

2.) good args>lots of args if the two need to be mutually exclusive. i will defer from what i said earlier in paradigm for a sec: i am probably not the judge to go twenty off in front of. better debates have fleshed out and evolved args on each page instead of throwing a billion different arguments at the wall in the 1nc and seeing what sticks.

3.) be nice please! everyone is here at ungodly hours on a weekend. everyone is tired and hungry. being passive aggressive (or being actively aggressive lmao) during a round is so lame! having a massive ego and thinking you're better than everyone else at a tournament is so lame! if there is an actual reason you can't be cordial to your opponents in round then that is something to say to your judge, your coach or the tournament director.

I have debated since 8th grade, and now I am a college forensicator at Western Kentucky University. In high school, I competed in Policy Debate, Public Form, and Congressional Debate and also Interp events during the Forensics season.

Here is my Policy Debate Paradigm:

K's

- I was always a K debater, so I have a sweet spot for them. Make sure if you read a K you describe it well and explain the world of your alt.

Topicality

- Topicality is not a heavy voter for me. I'm not a fan of using it just for a time-filler. However, when running/answering T, please structure it correctly.

Speed

- Speed is not a big problem for me though I am not a huge fan of spreading. If you spread, make sure you explain your cards well and slow down for taglines and more important points

On-case Arguments

- Aff, these are very important to keep consistant throughout the round. Offense is just as important as defense.

- For the neg finding solvency deficits is a significant voter for me.

Other Off-Case Arguments

- I'm down to hear any disads, CPs, etc. as long as you prove their relevance in the round.

*If any team says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. it will be an automatic loss.*

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: The Pembroke School, Kansas City, MO

Debate Experience: 25+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

Hey friends!

My name is Shelton Byrnes and I work for Topeka Public Schools as a Secretary. On top of that, I work a second full time job at Topeka Civic Theatre as a Server. I debated my Freshman and Senior Year of High School for Shawnee Heights, and I competed at state and did pretty well for a JV kid! But TBH friends, I am a forensicater WAY before I would call myself a debater. I love emotional stuff and personal anecdotes in your speeches, tell me why YOU care, not just the authors!

I would say I am mild to moderate in terms of my knowledge of the cases this year. Obviously I don't have my doctorate in Humanitarianism with a minor in aqua biology, but I am a pretty smart cookie!

I promised myself I would say this as a judge, so here it goes. Speak at whatever speed you are comfortable at, BUT don't expect me to catch every work for those of you that spread, I work at a preschool, so I am pretty good at deciphering meaning with little context, but don't let my brain come up with something you didn't say! That can work against you!

Stay away from any problematic args, as that will likely get you IMMEDIATELY the 3-4. Be kind, and you'll get farther.

I'm a sucker for a good States CP, and a T arg is totally valuable, even if it is complete and utter nonsense, make them prove to me that they are topical!

TL;DR Emotions Emotions Emotions, run anything you want that is unproblematic, speak at whatever speed you want, dumb it down if you feel it is necessary.

If you have ANY questions about the round, reach out at robert.shelton.byrnes.2002@gmail.com

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

NCFL specific: Speak loud and clear!!!!!! If you know you will want to see evidence set up an email chain before the debate starts. Also actually use it and be nice! Also clash evidence with each other!!!!

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school I only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD (all still pretty chill formats).

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon. If you are running a new K in front of me just be able to explain it well. You should be able to tell if I am confused.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it though

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like them lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

Email:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency.There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

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.

I have not debated as a competitor before and this is my first year coaching at Manhattan High School in Manhattan, KS. 

An overview is highly appreciated. 

Speed: I would prefer a conversational pace and to not have to flow off of the speech document.

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefits me just as much as you.

I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.

I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.

Standard things:

I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!

Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.

Kritiks- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.

Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..

Kritikal affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

Put me on the email chain brett.krambeer@gmail.com

four years in high school at Hutchinson High School (KS)

two years in college at The University of North Texas

Currently debating at Emporia Sate University (Stingers Down!)

Assistant coach for Lawrence High School (KS) for two years

Current assistant coach for Emporia High School (KS)

This happens more often than anyone wants to admit: If anyone in the room has made an offensive comment of a severe degree I will automatically vote against you. If an argument is not made in the debate about the comment, I will still vote against you if I subjectively decide it warrants that response. Your speaks will suffer regardless. I will only stop the debate if I am asked to by a debater, if I am I will.

Other than that, have fun and be nice to each other. You should do what you do, I'll adapt to you. I am comfortable with most everything. With that being said, I wish people did a better job of starting off slower, give me a sec to adjust to your voice by starting off at like 85% speed or so.. Especially if you're starting off with a theory or T argument.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. You need to win an argument AND a reason why that argument means I should vote for you. Don't just throw a bunch of cards at me, it makes me sad. I think the most important speeches are the rebuttals, write my ballot for me.. I like to be lazy, tell me what I'm voting on and why. I don't like reading evidence after a debate, I won't unless I have to or am told to.

I tend to be swayed by well-explained turns case arguments. Tell me how different flows and arguments interact with each other. I wish more people read impact turns.

Making choices is good.. I wont judge kick an alt or CP unless I am told to.

Specific arguments

Kritiks: I am most likely to vote for a K with a specific link and a well explained alternative (Do not assume I understand your alternative) and how it solves the aff/affs impacts. Furthermore, I think impact framing arguments are also very important and needs to be clearly extrapolated because I will use that to frame the rest of the debate.

Planless Aff’s: You do you, I have less experience with this style of affirmative. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to T.

I've been coaching for 16 years in SE Kansas at Pittsburg HS. I've qualified teams to NSDA policy, LD, PF nats the last 13 years. Coached the 5A State Championship Policy Debate Teams in 2022 and several teams to semi-finals in policy the last few years.

I will want to join the speech drop or whatever you are doing to share evidence.

I'm very much a traditional judge who considers myself a policymaker.

If you are neg and don't run a DA (even a generic one), don't expect a neg ballot.

CPs are great - make sure you've got a net benefit to go with it.

Ks are not great. Not a fan. Please don't run one.

T is fine if it's super untopical, but don't do it for a timesuck reason.

I don't mind theory, especially when the other team can't/doesn't answer it.

Solvency is my favorite stock issue for me.

Impact calc is a way to my heart.

On-case arguments are super fantastic.

New in the 2NC is totally fine - it is a constructive after all - but new DAs would be a hard no.

Weighing arguments in rebuttals is vital to winning my ballot.

Spreading is fine, but if you can't be understood, why do it?

Road maps, line-by-lines, and crystallization are all wonderful and important to being an organized debater, plus an organized flow is a happy flow in my world.

Happy to answer any additional questions you have. Be nice to each other. I appreciate kind debaters.

No Topic Experience- jmarks3579@gmail.com

No spread, go slow

Debate the issues at hand, not theory or topicality- but love CPs

Evidence quality matters,

You can read a K, but explain it extensively

Max McCarty

---updated before BVSW 2024---

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Debate Experience

I debated at BVSW in high school, focusing on the TOC circuit during my senior year, where we consistently cleared. In college, I competed for a year at UTD, attending all major tournaments as well as some local D3 events. From 2018-2019, I worked at the SDI as a debate judge and speech reviewer. Over the past 6+ years, I’ve been actively coaching high school debate, first at LFS until the 2022-2023 season and now at BVN. Throughout my coaching journey, I’ve worked with students at all levels, from novices to some of the top competitors in the country.

--Top level things --

At the end of the day, this is a communication activity!

• Reading paragraphs of analytics at full speed will get you no where. I think that students find that if "they put them in the doc" all is forgiven. I could care less, I am flowing your speech, not the doc.
• Means that cards should be highlighted appropriately - I grow increasingly frustrated when reading cards that are incoherent because they consist of a bunch highlighted sentence fragments.
• Line by Line and direct clash has to happen! The more the better! Large overviews are often confusing and messy. As they are arguments that could be contextually explained far better doing line by line and comparative analysis than the same overview every speech.
• Specificity matters, I see this in both "ideological types" of debate. For policy teams an example is: reading 10 cards to prove a link to a bad PTX da in the block is fine, but at some point quality analytical spin that tells me why they matter or interact with specific portions, mechanisms, results, etc of the aff is equally as valuable. For K teams, an example is impact explanations, how they interact with the specifics of the aff, round, what it means for the specific debate are important as I often find these explanations to be vague.

• not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do
• I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.

Tech > Truth

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

• I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
• I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

• I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

• I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
• round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. In general, I am probably not the best for these debates outside of more "basic" ones (Cap, Security, Set-Col). This is because I’m not well read in lit at all. Does not mean I have not judged many debates outside of that, but with me being so much less involved than I used to and never reading that type of literature I would rather be upfront. If your argument falls outside of the above, ways you can help me are context, specificity, and direct clash and line by line. First and foremost I have to have an understanding by the end of the round what the specific link to the aff is, and how the alternative resolves it. Second, direct clash and line by line works in your favor as it helps me more clearly see where you are winning offense and adds to your explanations.

More general comments here - I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. the My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

If email chain: logan.michael1101@gmail.com speech drop is kool too.

WaRu '16-'20 (Policy)

Washburn University '20-'24 (NFA-LD)

Assistant coach at WaRu

Generics

Speed: I'm fine with speed if the rest of the room is too. Just slow down for analytics. I'll also probably be flowing on paper (that I "borrowed" from you) so please give me pen time

Judge instruction is real important. Write my ballot for me.

Disclaimer: I processes things a lot slower than other people so I apologize in advance if it takes me a while to get you an RFD

Note for HS: I have judged few if any rounds on this years topic, I've done 0 research and your topic sounds complicated so please slow down and explain things to me as if I'm 5. Thank you!

In general you do you. I default to evaluating the round how you tell me to. I would prefer to see you do what you want to do well than do what I like bad. But, just in case

specific arguments:

T/Theory

Please have all parts of your theory shell. I will not vote for a theory argument without them.

Ks

I will listen to any K. That being said, i haven’t engaged in the lit base of a lot of them so, if I don't understand the K and it's clear you don't understand the K it will be extremely hard for me to vote on it so make you explain everything (especially your links) well.

CPs

Read 'em

DAs

Read 'em

Things I like: Bow-ties, kool socks. Things I don't like: People being rude (don't do this).

If anything is unclear or you want further clarification just ask before the round or email me. Good luck!

Yes, I do want to be on the e-mail chain: mphrommany@bluevalleyk12.org

I was a debater for Spring Hill High School. Coach for Manhattan High School 2017-2024. I now Coach for Blue Valley High School in Stillwell, KS.

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 comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric (or most procedurals for that matter) 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 they have to be competitive. 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 :)

Random stuff for this year: 2024-2025

--- I need to see some fantastic evidence comparison this year. The literature feels very divided on what conditions best generate things like innovation.,

--- I have a hard time believing IPR will sway the election

---I think the K ground this year is fantastic

--- I will listen to a generic Strengthening Enforcement T debate. I'm not quite sure of how I feel about this argument yet.

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision. Yes, to judge instruction.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

I'm mostly a stock issues judge, but I also weigh impact of the policy.
I'm good with K's if there's a clear purpose and if it's explained clearly.
I'm fine with counterplans and topicality. Both just need to have a clear purpose and not just added filler.
Really not a fan of high speed. I still flow by hand. I want to be able to understand you.
Being nice and show good sportsmanship, please.

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Growing old is mandatory...growing up is optional!

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

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Mandatory Autobiography:

I debated in High School in the 1900's (Lansing HS, KS, '02), College 2002-2006 at ESU (RIP!), and coached at the following places: ESU (06-07), Topeka High School (2007-2024), Lawrence High (2024-present).

What I used to Read in the 1900's:

In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

My Coaching Present

For the first time in decades, I am not actively teaching a debate class. This means that if it comes to rounds which might get faster or more tech-y, my brain might take a second to boot up to these. If this is your cuppa, then take a second and slow down a little bit, let me get use to your voice and speaking pattern, and then once you see my odd nodding and moving back and forth, you are probably good to go off to the races!

My coaching past

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past two decades and a current middle school teacher, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarily be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school. I did not do debate in college. It has been over a decade since I've been in a competitive round.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. Put it this way, I got absolutely cooked in a demonstration debate we did for the novices. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10 (please interpret this as I'm not great with speed)

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Yes.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower.

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost? Condo debates are just really hard for me to render a decision on. Like why is it my burden to do the heavy lifting here?

Starting off, I can't and won't do handshakes, sorry :(( It's not that I'm trying to be disrespectful, but I just can't do the whole touching strangers thing!

Moving on...

I did 4 years of Debate AND Forensics with Olathe Northwest High School -- and now go to KSU.

I prefer to have your speech available to me while you read, I can navigate both speechdrop and email chains to share them (I prefer speechdrop, but whatever works, works.)

You can speak slow, mid, or fast (spread if you'd like, but I do flow based on what I hear, and not what is written in the documents.)

I'm ok with any argument, DA's, CP's, or T's etc. (I'm a sucker for T's), if you're going to run a K make sure you understand it, and please make sure it's not nonsense.

Please flow the debate, and flow properly, don't say you read a card if you didn't (I WILL know).

All in all, this is supposed to be educational, don't use this space to bully, harass, or harm your opponents in any way.

(p.s. if you're reading this you already have a head up over your opponents, ALWAYS look up paradigms, if they don't have one, I recommend asking your judge of their experience/if they have preferences before the round begins! and be sure to introduce yourself!!)

Stay calm and remember to have fun!

Big Questions Debate Paradigm

For Big Questions, it is hard to put a paradigm into words (unlike with my policy paradigm, which is below if you are interested). Because you cannot run the K (thank you Jesus!) this is about clash, argumentation, and evidence. This is what debate should be about in my opinion. So, present your arguments, provide some evidence, and listen to your opposition and try and prove your case is the better option than theirs. I know this is not much, and this sounds simple, but this is what good, real-life applicable debate is all about.

If you have more questions, ask before the round and I can clarify things further (well, hopefully).

CX Debate Paradigm

I am an old man. I am angry. I generally hate the K. instead, why don’t we talk about the resolution and throw an actually somewhat serious plan out there. Then, maybe the Neg could run a DA or two, and maybe an off-case item or two, all which have some basis in reality. I realize The Butterfly Effect sounds really cool and all, but a gnat farting in Florida should not provide enough impetus to launch a global thermonuclear war. I do not mind speed, but please be clear. If you cannot be understood, it does not really count as an argument. Also, I will also note that I hate open cross-ex. Both members of your team should know your case or arguments and be able to defend or expand upon them.

Final, fun note. I flow on paper. It means I will not take your document/data dump like the other team. It also means that I will give you the benefit of the doubt for reading the contents of a card if you do not actually do so. What is actually said in the round during a speech is what I judge upon. Nothing else. In addition, do not argue over a card the other team never read that somehow got mixed into a speech transfer by accident (I have watched this and I still do not understand it to this day).

I hope this helps.

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.

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. 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.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE

239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.

Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.

Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.

Cliff notes: I am a closeted K-Hack (meaning they aren’t my fav, but a well poised one is nice) posing as a policy maker. On that note, spreading for the purpose of outspreading the other team is no different than word vomit. I am okay with speed if args (and your tags) are EXTREMELY clear and well developed, I am not okay with speed when it is solely for out-reading the other team. Tell me where to flow, how to vote, and why it is important. If you’re going so fast I can’t flow, I won’t.

For Email chains: kutt@usd266.com, however, I prefer the tabroom created doc drops to keep rounds moving. It wastes so much time waiting for emails.

PSA: Preflow means you flow before you get into round. I should not have to wait to start the round because you need to flow your own case. Even in PFD. You should have several preflowed copies of your pro and con cases so you're prepared for either side.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

I am in my 8th year of debate. Fourth year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: February 16^th, 2024, Pre-Spartan Green & Gold.

General:

Do what you want. I genuinely believe in debate as a space for debaters to make any argument they choose. This means I don’t care if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate. Over the course of my short 3 year tenure of judging, I have judged over 170 debates, voting for basically every argument imaginable.

I do care about teams making complete arguments. A complete argument is one that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. Arguments that are not explained with warrants or impacted out in the context of their opponent’s arguments are incomplete and therefore have less sway on my decision than those that are complete. For example, if the AFF has said “climate change causes extinction---ocean rise, temperature change, etc. make Earth uninhabitable by collapsing agriculture and destroying society”, the response of “no impact to climate change---it’s fake” is insufficient because a.) it does not contain a warrant (why is it fake?) and b.) it does not contain an impact (why does it matter if it is fake?).

The above applies equally to “answered” and “dropped” arguments. You cannot just say “conceded” or “they’ve dropped x” 20 times and expect me to vote on it. You still need to give a reason if it is true and implicate the concession in the debate. An argument being dropped does not guarantee it is “true”.

I have spent almost the entirety of my debate career reading a plan and going for DAs and CPs. This means while I will still vote for any argument, my experience and knowledge are both better in policy debates and the way I think about the K is attempting to beat it, not win rounds on it.

I will likely have a lot to say in the decision. I usually write a lot down, and tend to have opinions on almost everything said in the debate. I will likely talk for a while, either until I run out of things to say or am cut off by a question. Assuming the questions remain civil, I will answer any and all questions debaters, coaches, or teammates have about the round. If you start yelling at or berating me, I will likely pack up and leave.

I will do my best to give complete and thorough feedback for each speech. Too many times I've asked in an RFD "how can I improve the 1NR/2AR?" and received the response "I think the 1NR/2AR was really good. Don't have anything I'd add", while later seeing I got a 28.9. This is extremely frustrating as a debater, and I will do my best to avoid doing that by spending prep time after your speech coming up with feedback.

The bottom line for everything in this paradigm is that I care a lot about debate. I spend a large portion of my free time debating, judging, coaching, running tournaments, writing files, cutting cards, streaming debates on YouTube, etc. It has become an almost integral part of the last third of my life, and I know that is true of many of the debaters I will have the honor of judging. As such, I will try my absolute hardest in each and every debate I judge to render the correct decision and give thorough feedback.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

---Competing interpretations is the only method of evaluation that makes sense to me. I do not understand how I would approach evaluating T debates if not from an offense-defense point of view. I also think that “reasonability” is meaningless and ultimately devolves into competing interpretations---instead of “we are reasonable because the NEG had the ability to debate”, explain it in the context of the risk of their impacts versus yours.

---I am getting really sick of AFFs reading vague plans that barely modify resolution language so they can go for “plan text in a vacuum”. Will I vote on it, and do I do it in my debates? Sure. But I think it’s a bad argument. Instead of touting your AFF that definitely violates as “topical” because you said a word or phrase, defend a model of debate that includes your AFF.

---In-round abuse is not necessary (it’s a debate of models), but explanation of what debates look like under your model is (case lists, examples of ground, etc.).

---My favorite T speeches I've ever watched are when the AFF has read a counter-interpretation they do not meet. This happens more often than teams realize, but is often ignored because the argument was either a cheap shot or the blanket assumption that the AFF meets the interpretation. If you think the AFF doesn't meet their own interpretation, go for it.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

---Fairness can be an impact, but it also cannot. Whether it is depends equally on the NEG’s explanation and the AFF’s responses. I have found fairness to be a more persuasive impact than clash but have voted and gone for both.

---I find myself voting NEG when teams correctly use small, technical arguments to drastically reduce the risk of AFF offense (“T is a procedural, so you cannot weigh case vs. T”, “debate does not change subjectivity”, “the ballot cannot solve their offense alone, but it can solve ours”). I find myself voting AFF when teams either go for their counter-interpretation resolves NEG offense OR impact turn everything the NEG has said.

---I find it very hard to vote NEG when teams are re-reading blocks without engaging in the AFF’s arguments, or not explaining their offense in terms of what the NEG has said (going for a predictability internal link instead of a limits internal link when the counter-interpretation is “limited” but unpredictable, not comparing your impact to the language of the AFF’s impact, etc.). I find it hard to vote AFF when they are not debating technically or exploiting dropped arguments (the NEG dropping something like “small schools” or “the ballot can only solve our offense” but not going for it because your pre-written blocks don’t include an extension).

---I am a sucker for PIKs versus planless affirmatives, and usually find it far more strategic than going for topicality. When I was a 2N, many of my 2NRs versus planless affirmatives were PIKs out of random things (the phrase "mapping of time"; the phrase "lock them up"; etc.).

Disadvantages:

---Politics scenarios have become laughable. Writing a politics DA does not mean just finding a card that says a bill exists and a card that it would do good things, then throwing your generic PC or bipartisanship link and climate change impact card and making a DA. A politics scenario makes sense when it is something being actively debated or campaigned for, and when it is something the president is actually spending PC on. I love a good politics DA, but those tend to be few and far between anymore.

---I care a lot about turns case arguments---both “impact turns case” and “link turns case”. I equally care a lot about “case turns the DA” arguments. I find these to be extremely helpful in both breaking down close debates but also helping to reduce opponent’s offense because it tends to always be unanswered.

Counterplans:

---I hate watching a process CP debate---not because I think the argument is inherently bad (though it is), but because both teams are usually horrendous in doing the relevant line by line for competition.

---AFF-specific PICs are some of my favorite arguments. Topic generic PICs (like country PICs on NATO) are the opposite. I love it when counterplans contest a core assumption of the AFF, not when they negate something the AFF had no choice but to defend.

---Conditionality is good, and core to NEG strategy. I will still vote on theory, but it’s an uphill battle. I am NEG leaning on almost all theory, except for performative contradictions or international fiat, because I tend to find those violations to be extremely egregious.

---Most other theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. But, if the counterplan is the 2NR and you are clearly ahead on a given theory argument, go for it.

Kritiks:

---I find it much easier to vote NEG when the 2NR is FW, not the alternative. I personally think AFFs should get to weigh the plan but have found so many debaters to be horrendous at defending why that is the case. I find that FW 2NRs make the most sense when they attempt to reduce AFF offense to as close to zero as possible.

---However, I find it extremely difficult for the NEG to win FW or reps-based arguments when they have read contradictory arguments at different points in the debate, and I do not think that condo or NEG flex justifies that.

---If the 2NR is the alternative, I find it far easier to vote NEG when it is actively compared to and explained in terms of the AFF (does it solve the AFF? Make it impossible to solve?).

---I find it much easier to vote AFF when teams do impact calculus on FW or go for DAs to the alternative. It is insufficient to just say “fairness matters” or “education comes from talking about the plan”, it also needs to be explained in terms of why the NEG’s interpretation forecloses it and why those things matter more than the NEG’s offense. The same is true for the alternative---most AFF teams let the NEG get away with murder in terms of alternative explanation (especially when going for the alt solves the AFF), so reasons why the alternative does not make sense or cannot solve the links / AFF would be super helpful.

---AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

---The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

---I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go a long way.

---You should go for the impact turn. Debaters are horrible at answering it, and I love a good, and fun, impact turn debate.

I've been coaching speech and debate at SME for 20 years (15 as head coach and 5 as an assistant). I debated open at SME, where I also went to high school.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making paradigm, but I'm open to other frameworks. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear. I'm not extremely familiar with K lit so I'd be cautious to read a K in front of me, but I'm open.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks.

I prefer speed at a moderate to quick pace as long as you're clear.

I want clear link stories and strong impact calc! I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues.

Please sign-post clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments.

Ethos is important so please be respectful and kind to each other, and present yourselves in a convincing, persuasive manner!

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coached at Blue Valley 2022-2024

Coaching at Binghamton 2024-Present

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this years topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory language or disrespect. Rock on!