J Matt Hill Invitational at Topeka High School
2022 — Topeka, KS/US
DCI Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Please use speechdrop.net, if using an email chain. Archerdan82@gmail.com, please put me on.
I'm Dan Archer I debate for Washburn University in my second year, NFA LD format ( 1 person policy ). I debated for 4 years at Derby high.
I have no topic experience
Aggressive CX are annoying and unnecessary. Insults are a round loser for me. It's one thing to debate the args but personal attacks are a round loser.
K debate- I am familiar with core K args but anything that's too far out you need to explain. You are welcome to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your K/ authors.
T- You still need to do standards debate and everything, but I tend to lean toward competing interps. Saying voters for fairness and Ed is not an argument, impact that out.
Theory- do what you can justify
Speed- Do whatever the norm is
CP- CP's do what you can justify
DA- use them anything goes
Case- if you are going for presumption make it clear and you need to put together a good story here, you're better off having a risk of offense
You dictate the pace and atmosphere of the round. If something is hostile, I will vote you down for it, I'm tired of seeing overly aggressive cross X, there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive
Please clearly tell me why you win. That is the best thing you can do in the round.
If I don't have something on the flow then I don't think it happened.
TLDR: I run everything and have experience with most args. I am most comfortable in a round that the debaters are doing what they are comfortable doing. This is your round I will evaluate the args as presented.
Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.
Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21
Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.
I debated at Washburn University (LD)
No topic experience!
Email chain: email@example.com
LD in college is pretty much a condensed policy round.
TL-DR: I evaluate the round through risk analysisLike to think I have no biases so do what you want. I default to evidence quality when clash is very close. Me adapting to you>>> you adapting to me. Want to see you at your best.
Case: Impact turns are bueno. Impact calc! 2ACs should extend case, 2AR not so much.
FW: If you don't clash don't get mad when I have to intervene
T: The standards debate will dictate the ballot- will not vote on gut checks and a risk of offense on competing interps means the aff is unreasonable
K: do whatever
CP: Perms should be more than perm do both. On PICS, Consult, Delay I lean neg on theory but i weigh solvency deficits heavily for the aff
Speaks: 28.5 is middle
I competed in HS during the 90's.
I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years
I seldom think speed is a good idea
I am largely policy maker, at least in background
I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives
I want clash over just about anything else
I prefer argumentation over cards
it is possible I have become a grumpy old man
I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching
I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition
I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as tabula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.
oddly I DO like a discussion of out of round impacts, role of the ballot, and real world impact of the activity/arguments
have never looked at cards-never will
In my final "get off my lawn" rant, I hate the time wasted between speeches dealing with or waiting on tech. I seriously don't care if it hasn't loaded before the speech begins. See---grumpy
I’m a head coach.
My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.
My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.
Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.
I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.
Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.
Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.
Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.
Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.
Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.
Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.
Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.
Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.
Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.
Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.
Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.
Please add me to your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I prefer speech drop
I did NFA LD for 4 years for Washburn University. I currently am a grad assistant for Washburn's debate team. My favorite type of argument is T/theory/rules. As long as you're impacting out why fairness and education matter and are reading 4 parts on the sheet I'm willing to listen to basically any theory position. That being said, I also like aff outweighs T arguments or other offense generated against theory sheets. I don't come into the round assuming debate is good or bad so it's the debaters job to persuade me. I consider myself tech>truth on theory sheets as long as you are making actual warranted arguments and aren't just saying claims.
If I have to intervene because of a messy flow or because nobody extended an impact I become a stock issues judge. As such, I tend to have a much higher threshold for whichever team doesn't have presumption.
Speed is fine. I don't have a preference. If I miss something because you weren't clear that is on you. I probably won't clear you so use reasonable discretion.
Please run your weird cheater affs/strats in front of me. Of course you have to theoretically justify them on the back end, but this activity can be so boring and I want to see your creativity.
I'm very sympathetic to arguments focused on pointing out deployment errors in general (no uniqueness on a disad, only claims with no warrants on standards debates, dropped args are true args, vague interps bad, etc. etc.).
On Ks I'm not a huge fan of links of omission. I also am VERY sympathetic to criticisms of non-indigenous debaters reading set col or other such arguments. If the link isn't a link of omission there are exceptions.
If you're going for presumption and have a counteradvocacy please don't also extend the alt/CP. Just go for presumption.
I think it's the judge's responsibility to intervene if anything problematic was said to another debater and I will even if the other team doesn't call it out. I am also likely to intervene if you're excluding someone using speed or by not sending analytics if you have been communicated with about this before the round. It's cool to do mid-round off time clarification questions or to type up analytics to send if asked by your opponent to resolve these issues.
Overall, I tend to want to vote without thinking very much if possible. This means a good collapse can easily win my ballot even if the rest of the debate was not going in your favor. If you're winning everywhere but don't collapse to anything and the other team does collapse to something I'm going to lean towards the team that collapses to something unless it's just completely unwinnable.
I'll probably learn more about myself as I judge more NFALD and I'll try to update the paradigm if I figure out more of my biases. If I judge you and you think some way I've evaluated something is strange let me know because I'll throw that up in my paradigm. My goal is never to surprise anyone with a decision so if I am pretty consistently biased toward certain args then I'd like to know so y'all can have a heads up.
High school debate- I will be voting neg unless the aff convinces me that the plan CAN and should change the status quo. If solvency and an advantage is not extended into the last speech I will probably vote neg (see exceptions below). If the aff is going for an impact or perception based link turn you don't need to extend aff solvency. If you collapse to most link/internal-link turns/aff turns off-case arguments you MUST also extend aff solvency.
If the negative reads a counter advocacy or theory sheet and collapses to it then the aff only has to prove that it's preferable to the counter advocacy, that the counter advocacy doesn't solve, or that the theory sheet is not offensive against the aff.
I enjoy good clean theory debates with clash and warrants. If a theory sheet does not include all 4 parts and warranted arguments about how the theory sheet impacts the debate space I will be tempted to intervene. If you are planning to go for theory, theory sheets should be warranted in the first speech where they appear instead of being a list of buzzwords that get re-contextualized into arguments in later speeches.
I am almost always going to vote for the team who collapses to one or two synergistic arguments with impact framing over a team who points out every dropped argument on the flow without context for why it matters.
If I have to intervene because of a messy flow from both teams/little to no collapse done from either side I tend to vote negative on presumption UNLESS the negative has extended a counterproposal into their final speech in which case presumption flips aff.
Speaker points/rank are assigned based mostly on who wins and then who made the debate the most clear and accessible (including to your partner). Condescending behavior towards partners who might not be as experienced is the fastest way to lose speaker points/rank.
Put me on the email chain email@example.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.
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.
Jan 2024 Update:
Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot
Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!
WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.
I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.
I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.
In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.
I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.
I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.
K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.
I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.
Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.
I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.
Add me to the email chain:
TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.
Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time
Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks
Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker
Impact calc is good
I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.
I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.
This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.
Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.
If you have any questions just ask!
Eight years as a competitor, four of those as an assistant coach, second year as a head coach at Emporia HS, KS.
Topicality - Not my fav argument but I'll vote for it. PLEASE focus on standards and voters. Do not just argue definitions without standards the entire time - I probably won't vote on it. Prove you win your standards and voters AND that they are better than the other team's. Don't just run T on any case...
Disadvantages - Make sure you do strong impact calculus.
Kritik - Run whatever, Theory is cool if you know how to run it well. Not a fan of vague alt, I'd listen to theory on it.
Counterplans - Focus on net benefit, that's about it. I like CP's and I'm not super picky. Theory is cool if you know how to run it well.
Speed - I don't really care, but if the other team can't follow, slow down for them. It makes for a better debate if your opponent can understand you. If I'm not on the SpeechDrop, give me a little signposting to help me out.
Flowing - Do it. :)
I usually will just conform to whatever you want me to vote for in the round. Just be kind to each other and have a good debate.
Almost every round I judge is lost on two things:
1) The team doesn't flow and loses a debate they should win but they drop things without realizing it.
2) The team does not clearly show where they are at on the flow, so I'm forced to guess/search for the argument on the flow that they are attacking/answering. Be clear in your signposting throughout the speech (I often call it they say/we say on my team but your team may call it something else) and I will be able to flow well and judge well for you!
I would appreciate being on the email chain/Speechdrop. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is email@example.com if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.
I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.
I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.
I prefer speechdrop, but if your doing an email chain add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated 4 years at Topeka High School in KS (2015-2018) and I'm currently doing NFA-LD (single person policy) at Washburn University. During that time I have ran all sorts of arguments from traditional policy cases, to K affs, to wipeout and will listen to anything unless it is intentionally exclusionary. Tech over truth. I'm fine with speed if tags and theory are clear if they aren't and I miss an argument that on you. I haven't judged on this topic, so I don't know any community consensus or whatnot.
I'm willing to watch any type of affs. That being said I've had very little experience with performance affs so I may not be the best judge for them. If you are gonna run a K aff I would want it to have some tangential link to the topic.
I love T and think it is far too rarely used in debates. That being said if you're gonna run T run it well, just saying the words fairness and education will not win you anything. I need fully impacted out standards and voters as well as answers to all the major aff offense in order to feel justified voting neg. I tend to default to competing interps, but can be persuaded otherwise. Also the only time I would ever vote on a RVI is if they run T on every word in the rez, otherwise T is never a reason to vote down the neg.
To win most theory arguments there needs to be in round abuse or at least potential abuse which fundamentally alters the round. I will never vote on things like disclosure theory or plan flaw arguments unless they go unanswered or there is genuine in round abuse. As far as on argument theory, it is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but if the abuse is substantial I can be persuaded otherwise. I have no problem voting on Condo/
Specific links and DAs are always appreciated, but generic links and DAs are fine so long as the neg can defend why this specific aff still links. That being said if you go for a generic link the threshold I hold the link to is higher which would require more work in the later speeches. Specific politics and process DAs are great, just be able to explain the process if asked.
Specificity in CP texts is key as well as having solvency advocates for everything that your CP argues for, a CP without a solvency advocate doesn't matter. The only exception to that is if you are using the 1AC evidence as solvency evidence but then I need that explained. I don't really have a default position on PICs and Delay but I'll listen to theory. I'll default to judge kicking a CP unless the aff can convince me otherwise.
I'll listen to any K. That being said the more obscure the lit base the more explaining you'll need to do in round in order to win. Just shouting K jargon and assuming it will win the round will make me very unlikely to vote on the K. Alt explanation is key for me. I have no problem with teams just going for links as a disad to the case.
I love impact turn and framing debates and believe no matter what you're running there should always be impact turns ran. I'm not opposed to voting on case alone, but you would need to be winning significantly on case for me to vote on presumption.
I will only evaluate the parts of the evidence actually read in the debate. If you cut the card down for speed and eliminate all the warrants then the card really isn't much better than an analytic to me.
Just be good people and try to have an educational experience. If there is anything unclear in my paradigm feel free to ask before the round.
TLDR - 2023 Update (Nov 22, 2023): Debate well. Don't drop arguments. Don't be mean. If both teams do something wrong. each of you gets equal leeway (only applies to dropped args, not being an -ist). Run what you want to run, I'm good for a lot just say it more than once if you want me to care, don't leave it in the 1NC and expect me to just pick it up in the 2NR. Stock issues are not my favorite as an argument on its own without justification. That goes with any argument, if you are willing to make it, be ready to justify it with warrants, analysis, comparison, calculus, and explanation as the debate progresses. If you have time, this video is great on how I and many other judges feel about judging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5RTXQemPs&ab_channel=BillBatterman
Me - Pronouns He/Him: Computer Science Undergrad @ K-State,
Background: Currently with K-State College Policy Debate, 4 years HS Policy, 4 years Congress, 1 year PFD
Qualifications for the topic (2023):
I have judged at least 10 rounds this year on the topic throughout the semester and worked at the K-State Debate Camp. Don't assume I know enough about your aff or your DAs to throw around jargon like GND and JG a billion times without ever saying what your acronyms mean.
Contact me with any questions after the round: email@example.com
Add me to the email chain if that is what you decide to use for file sharing. I don't care if I get documents before the speech. I want to have them in case there is a dispute in the round.
UPDATE: I have used and love speechdrop too. If you all decide to use speechdrop.net then make sure I get the code for the same reason I want to be on the email chain.
Evidence DISCLAIMER: Do not expect me to read all of your evidence in depth after the round to make my decision. If you want to dispute something, make it known. If you want me to remember it, say it in your rebuttals. For novice I give some leeway but if the other team is better with keeping a clear and consistent story they will likely win.
I default policymaker in most cases (see K debate). If you present a K, consider me tabula rasa. If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me and tell me why.
Stock issues alone don't give the negative an INSTA-WIN. You still have the burden to prove why your argument matters. Topicality is a separate issue. Yes it is a stock issue, but it is also a procedural which you need to explain. There is an epidemic of T arguments that have no impacts(education, fairness, ground, clash...) in the 1NC and they often get forgotten later so debaters expect me to just vote that they read a card and the Aff loses, no thanks. Also, claiming "we read a card against their solvency, therefore they must lose" is far less convincing than "this is a terminal solvency deficit that makes it easy for you to vote on a low risk of the disad". Reading something on Inherency that they drop is an easier ballot but explain why, I won't do that work for you.
Example: Saying "they don't have solvency and should lose" when all you read was "companies circumvent" is not convincing. I will weigh that as a deficit to solvency so they likely solve something but not as much as they claim. Now, Inherency can be convincing sometimes. In the water topic, the cases that said "we want to fix lead pipes" were beaten by teams that said "Biden has money and resources for that in the Infrastructure Bill". But again this was the 1AC plan will literally be done in a month. So, unless you can prove 98.9% these things are true, then I'm unlikely to vote on it. If you say Biden could easily pass the plan, then tell my why I can't vote for them because of that. Speed is fine but I get the right to yell clear and stop flowing if you are unclear.
I will listen to any speed you want to throw at me. The clearer you are the more arguments I will have on my flow. If you do not clearly indicate when you move from one page or card or arg to the next I will do my best but it is your job to make sure my flow is clean and clear. A simple solution is a louder AND, or NEXT OFF, or GO TO ADV 1...
I am a K debater (aff and neg) in college (go 'Cats!), so run what you want but explain it like any other argument. Dumping a Cap K on some 2nd-year debaters and saying Marx will save us all probably is not accurate to your authors, and you likely don't need the K to win either. I'll hear your arguments, but I sometimes hold a lower threshold for teams to respond to the K because many kids in the circuit cannot access that research or coaching. Email me if you have questions. You can see my wiki on the College Caselist Kansas State - RT. Feel free to ask me questions in person because I love talking about debate.
What I want to see:
- Application to the flow: Each argument should go somewhere. If you have a turn, an answer, anything, then you need to tell me: is it on the DA?, is it on the Case?, If so what contention or advantage?
- Do what you have been taught. I prefer you tell me at some point, what that argument either does to the entire round, or what that specific card does for you on that specific place. This is the best way to write my ballot because it makes it very clear who is winning on the flow (instead of saying "we win here because" 1000 times with no reason why).
- Impact Calc: It is never too early for impact calc. Even if you don't have a direct answer to the case or the DA, do impact work. It is the easiest way to generate some defense. Or, you can turn the impact and make it clear why it affects the way I vote, just like anything else.
- I am good with hearing Ks, CPs, DAs, and whatever theory you throw at me. Specifics below
Ks need a full story because you cannot assume I am knowledgeable of your K. I will not judge kick the alt and you need a really good reason why the non-unique links are independent case turns that outweigh if you kick just the alt in the block. (why do I care if literally anyone thinking about policy could link)
CPs should include a full plan text and a solvency advocate (ofc if you have a reason not to, fine but the aff might win the "they don't have an advocate" debate, your choice). Run your theory. I am sympathetic to the neg on Condo. I literally don't know what dispositionality solves, explain it if you want but honestly limiting the amount of conditional advocacies or just saying condo bad seems to be stronger. I am not sympathetic to 1-liner style theory that Kansas debaters love. If its a voter you need to spend time on it. Every trap requires time to be built and set, take the time or I won't entertain it. Perms can be short but it usually doesn't make sense to read 5 perms at lightning speed all 5 words long because you know which one you are going for and I won't vote on "they didn't answer our perms" when they probably read a generic perm answer that is sufficient.
PERM BLOCK EXAMPLES
Example Bad Perm Block: Perm Do Both, Do the CP, Do the Aff, Do the CP then the Aff
Okay Perm Block: Perm Do Both: The US Should do the [1AC] and the [CP text] (At the same time or at different times...)
Better Perm Block: Perm do Both, Perm do the CP (read card the process is the same), Do the CP then the aff: The US should... explain how that works.
Especially in the 1AR, pick 1 perm and really explain how that works and why the CP is not competitive.
THEORY BLOCK EXAMPLES
Example BAD Theory: Conditionality is a reason to reject the team because its unfair for us to answer so many things.
Example GOOD Theory: Interp: Negative teams get 1 condo advocacy... Voting reason for fairness because aff has to contradict itself, time skew harms clash and skews strategy which makes debate an unplayable game causing people to leave... (You get the point, an attempt at warrants and real impacts is there, still short but actually makes sense)
DAs, you can run any impact you want, just tell me how mandatory minimums reform is somehow going to cause a nuclear war. I'll believe you when you walk me through that story, I am a sucker for those. All generic links can and should be articulated in Cross and the Block as specific to the aff. Read your link cards and figure out what about the plan links. Why does fiscal redistribution actually force the IRS to abandon counter-terror operations?
Topicality: run it how you like it. I am okay with the time suck as long as the aff doesn't win on the time suck abuse theory. If your topicality argument doesn't have a definition and a reason why I should vote on it, I'm not voting on it.
What I don't want to hear:
- Drops are important: try your best not to just ignore your opponent's arguments. I am flowing I will notice but if the other team drops it then it is dropped and not in my decision (with some leeway, if you also drop critical stuff then I give your opponent some room). Don't drop pieces of offense in the 2AC or 2NC (I mean don't forget a disad in the 2AC or forget a DA turn in the 2NC that the aff made) but if there were a lot off case in the 1NC I can be lenient to light coverage and more analytics.
- Analysis, not just evidence: I don't want to see a 2AC or 2NC that is just reading ev. I specified above that I at least need to know where it goes and at some point why it affects my decision with a specific claim or whole argument.
If you have any questions please don't be afraid to ask.
please put me on the chain Email:Rose.firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate
- I don't do hand shakes
- don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks
- I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space
- if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments
- you cant win a round without offense.
I vote for teams that take the activity seriously and have come prepared to debate the core topic arguments. I have no patience for shenanigans and will not sit idly by as you set a dumpster on fire, regardless of "technical execution." Finally, I am unwilling to vote on T/theory unless a facially unreasonable practice has occured, will judge kick at my own discretion if debated shallowly, and conduct risk calculus based on the likelihood of the overall internal link chains rather than simply the magnitude of the impacts.
Email chain: email@example.com
Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.
General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.
Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.
Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)
- Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
- Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
- Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
- Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
- Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.
Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)
- Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc. Internal links matter.
- CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
- Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
- Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
- Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
- Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."
Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)
- I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate. The Aff. can object, of course.
- Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
- Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
- Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
- You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
- Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
- The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
- I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.
Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)
- Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
- It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
- A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
About me: KU '25. I debate in college. Currently coach the Quarry Lane School. Previously coached Lawrence Free State ('22-23) and the Ascent Academy.
Debaters and coaches both work hard to make this activity meaningful to them and judges should care immensely about their role in evaluating debates.
To uphold my end of this bargain, I will flow to the best of my ability, prioritize whatever judge instruction you give me, line up arguments, and read the cards you tell me to read after the debate. I prefer to watch debates over good arguments (evidenced, generally topic specific, qualified and detailed) over bad ones. Despite this, I think that my role is to evaluate the debate however you tell me to and with whatever is in front of me--even if it's bad. I have judged and participated in debates across the ideological spectrum, I vote for both sides of clash debates with relative frequency. Preference can be overcome with better debating.
Here's some biases that you should probably know:
-Reasonability will take an above average amount of explanation to make sense as a method to evaluate debates. It is far more likely that you beat T or any other theory argument by assuming that competing interps is true rather than going for reasonability.
-You should number arguments and answer arguments where the other team said them and in the order they said them. If you do not do this, I will probably miss something and it will be your fault. Numbers start in the 1NC on case, and the 2AC off case. When all debaters get off track from the numbers I will flow straight down and I will hate it.
-I try pretty hard to get through the debate without looking at docs. Teams that are focused on global clarity (taglines and card bodies) good. Taglines that are two words and hide the substance in the body of the card- liable to new answers once you reveal your trick, because unless you are super clear its unlikely I got the nuances the first time around. If I cannot flow arguments (either because zero pen time, no numbers/structure, too fast/unclear [most prevalent online], no argument tag) I will readily admit that. I am rather confident in my flow so I don't really feel bad when these things come up.
-I fall more into "relative risk" esque camps than "try or die" ones. You do not have to convince me that "risk = probability x magnitude" or "the DA is multiplicative so terminal defense to one part takes out all." You likely also don't have to do much work to convince me that "each internal link reduces the probability of the next."
-I probably give more weight to analytics than most.
-CX - I go back and forth on "yes/no speech, args in CX, flowing it" etc... I will say that the CXs I think are the best to watch and the most strategic are ones in which a team asks sort of insidious explanatory questions that force the other team to say something bad for them, and the team asking the questions chooses not to point out their mistakes until speeches.
-I simultaneously think that presumption against K affs is true and hate to watch debates over it. Yes, the stuff probably doesn't spill out and it could be a bit of a waste of time. Who cares? like every other debate, the aff wins if its a good idea. This bias goes down for affs that are like plan: think different/be nice.
-might more more amenable to counterplan theory than most. haven't tested this bias. I wouldn't treat this as a total green-light, but it's not DOA.
-"fairness" and "clash" are only an impact when they are explained to a degree at which they matter. Executed equally, I think fairness beats out clash in framework debates [probably by a wide margin] because of the defense it provides.
-I don't think saying a 5 second tag line of your case defense argument in the 2NR justifies putting every card you read for that case defense argument in the card doc.
-I am far more on the side of "re-insert good" than other judges. Note, this still requires you to explain what you're reinserting. If your card concludes the other way, it shouldn't be the job of the other team to read aloud all the evidence that goes the other way. It creates a moral hazard to only read bad cards so the other team spends more time pointing out your bad cards than making offensive arguments.
-Jimin Park says---and I agree---"I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd."
-When you are going for a deficit to a counterplan, it will suit you to say what impact to the case/what advantage you think the deficit to the counterplan accesses ON the counterplan even if you think it's totally obvious. Takes one second to say for 2 minutes less card doc thinking.
-I don't think that I would ever be convinced by "my opponents answered the wrong argument - that's offense," irrespective of what the warrant is. Regardless of whether they did or did not answer the right argument, you still have to explain the right one. If they did answer the wrong argument, you should already be doing pretty well. If they didn't, I'm pretty sympathetic to neg basically regardless of what they say.
I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn
I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...
Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.
Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.
The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.
I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.
This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.
I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.
But on specific arguments
T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.
Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.
Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.
Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.
CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.
Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.
I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.
Condo good---X-------Condo bad
Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good
Speed good--X--------Speed bad
Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad
I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read
Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad
Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.
Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.
Being mean is a voter :)
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.
T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.
DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.
CPs- Fine with me all the way.
K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.
Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.
Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.
Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.
I do not tolerate racism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying, no matter how good you are if you are disrespectful it will be reflected in my decision. This doesn't mean you can't be sassy it just means don't cross that line otherwise I will stop the round and we will have a talk after your speech.
Do Not Spread
- No new in the 2NC is a bad argument and you will not win on it.
Topicality: Controversial opinion not every case needs to have a test on how topical they are. I have a high threshold to believe T, effects T is okay I guess same for extra T so make sure it is explained well. I see T as a DA to the Case, it is a voting issue just like a DA so if you go for this tell me why T is more important than solving the issue.
The K: Cool run it but the alt must have a good explanation in every speech it appears in. Also the argument "the k doesn't make any real change" won't fly with me, when I vote for policy affs and cps I understand there is no physical action taken there either. Prove why the alt can't solve, run a perm, no link it, and maybe even prove why you solve the issue better.
The K aff is completely fine with me but explain what the role of the ballot is, your advocacy/alt, and how the negatives arguments link to the problems the aff describes. If you are facing a performance K aff than talk about the content in the performance.
Theory: Cool and theory doesn't have to be a minute long block or anything but I don't want theory one liners that get blown up in the 2NR that had no voting issue? impact in the beginning of the round.
Speed: Fast is fine but I reserve the right to yell clear if I do not understand what you are saying or volume if you need to be louder. Also I might miss analytics if you go too fast so go at tag speed on the analytics.
Case: It exists the neg should argue on it and affs should carry through the key points of the case and its advantages. I would love to see people quoting evidence in their explanations and using the other teams ev to link to their arguments. Case turns keep me alive.
email chains > speech drop
debate however you want to
LD Paradigm at the bottom
Notes for online debate
If you raise your pitch while spreading, please go slower so you don't peak or modify your gain filter so your audio does not cut out
Prefer cameras on including prep
If you have a fun strategy feel free to run it in front of me - this excludes exclusionary strats
Good for speed, just make sure you're clear, if I clear you and you don't change then don't be surprised if my flow misses an argument you made
Evidence quality and ethics are highly valuable to me, although I typically let the flow decide what is "true". That being said I have a low threshold for ignoring bad cards, if your opponent reads bad cards jump on this. If you don't, I won't do the work for you.
Additionally rehighlighting their evidence will always boost your speaks and be very good at zeroing the argument that card makes for them. However, make sure you are right about what you point out.
feel free to post round if you don’t think my decision was clear
Default to competing interps (this means you need to say reasonability and extend it through the 2ar)
Topic specific definitions > general definition > noncontextual definitions
I can be persuaded otherwise but this is what I default to
I enjoy evaluating T debates and would consider myself good for them.
T USfg -
Negative teams need to answer the impact turns by being specific about how their impacts implicate the affirmative model's solvency. Your education/fairness arguments mean nothing if it is key to something that the affirmative is critiquing.
Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate, broadly saying debate is violent or procedural fairness is key are unpersuasive absent a reason why the other team's model does not solve for your impact or exacerbates it.
Clash is probably the most persuasive impact for me, but I will also vote on education and fairness as impacts
Affirmatives need to define the role of the negative
K Affs -
Teams that counter-define the resolution and create an interesting model of debate will more often than not win in front of me. I find full impact turns to T less persuasive relatively but will still vote on them.
Any affirmative that is willing to defend itself and its purpose in the debate space may be read in front of me. Advocate for what you want my ballot to represent and I will typically use it as such unless you lose framework.
Have a high threshold for most arguments as a I believe they should typically be reasons to reject the team
Turns case arguments are important to me, especially when comparing extinction impacts
Soft left affs should look to win the framing page with more than just "extinction never happens".
The best way to zero a disad is with evidence indicts.
There is not always a risk of the link/impact and I will typically read the cards surrounding those two most thoroughly in my decision
If you are going to read cards on the counter plan it should have a solvency advocate in the 1NC, otherwise I will be easily persuaded by theory
CPs based off 1AC evidence are some of my favorite to judge
I lean neg on the question of sufficiency framing so comparison of the world post-aff vs post-cp are very important to me
I would say I'm a good judge for any K
I think that the block should have a significant amount of link explanation, therefore I'm more empathetic to grouping blippy links in the 1AR as a way to deter the link shotguns that seem to have become more popular. This is because too often I see teams throw out 5 or 6 links in the block to have the 1AR drop one they apparently aren't prepared to go for in the 2NR and end up collapsing the debate down to the one argument which was covered. (this will tank your speaks as a 2N)
Framework is key to how I evaluate the alt and what my ballot represents - teams can still win absent framework and it is a viable 2nr in many cases if you're ahead on the link debate
On that note, affs should try to isolate whether the alt is material or not as early in the debate as possible, this informs a lot of the debate and letting the negative run away with this will lose you debates.
K - 1
Trad/Policy - 1
Phil - 2
Theory - 2
Performance - 3
LARP - 3
Tricks - 4
I enjoy watching debates where debaters can show off their knowledge, I care less about overviews and think that your line by line intrinsically makes the claims your overviews will and it is more persuasive to have me reference your line by line than your overview.
Willing to vote on tricks and technical debates and the flow will often determine my ballot, however I'm not as good for tricks because I believe some debates over tricks are really bad, theory less so but they can become frivolous
Performance and LARP debates may need to spend a bit more time on judge instruction in the final rebuttals for judge framing since I lean towards framework in the context of these debates
Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020
Debated at KU 2020-2022
Coaching at Blue Valley
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 topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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>>>>>>
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.
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 lanague or disrespect. Rock on!