Girl just debate lol

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.

he/him/his---4th year varsity debater at waru, tech>truth

go for whatever you want i have done the vast majority of debating styles---put me on the email chain---email: bathcar@usd437.net

given that this is for novices, i don't feel as if my personal takes on arguments are that necessary

I am a 3rd Year Debater at Hayden High School, I've debated at every level of high school debate from novice to DCI.

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

For novice after-schools:

Have fun! I did a ton of these my freshman year and these tournaments are a great place to practice and get experience. If you want to try something or just figure out how this activity works, I'm glad you are doing this.

Confidence is massive! If you sounds confident it will win you a lot of rounds in novice-land. Make sure to pay attention to how the debate is progressing but never sound like you already lost, because if you aren't, it will probably lower your chances.

Just try to keep the round moving, use your prep, but don't take excessive amounts of time between prep and your speech.

1. Speed: I'm fine with decent speed but make sure you are clear. Clarity>speed but if you can do both go for it. Send analytics if you are going to go super fast but I understand not wanting to send them, I usually don't. But be aware if you are going super fast I might miss some analytics if you don't send them and it could cost you. You do you.
2. Depth>Bredth: explain your arguments. A claim without a warrant is not an argument especially in later rebuttals. I get in the 1AR you don't have a ton of time but to extend an argument I need a warrant. I'm fine with a 1AR spending 15 seconds on something and the 2AR grandstanding on it as long as the 1AR extended the warrant.
3. CPs: Love these. Make sure they are competitive. I'll listen to cheaty CPs but if the aff calls it out I'll also listen to RVIs. Make sure the CP can solve and actually have a net benefit and I'll vote for it. For the aff, winning the disad net benefit is the quickest way to win these debates because no net benefit means I don't vote on the CP.
4. DAs: Love these. Generic DAs are good, but Specific DAs are great. If you have a DA most people don't read but you think is good, that should be your best weapon. The link debate is the most important on DAs.
5. T: I run T in most of my rounds so I am definitely comfortable voting on T. Make sure it has a Interp, violation, standards, and voters. I can't vote on T without voters so make sure to extend those throughout the entire debate.
6. Ks: I'm not the most experienced with Ks but I have read a few in the past. I'm most comfortable with Racial Cap, Biopower, and Necropower. Make sure to clearly articulate your K throughout the round and why it matters. Also make sure to have a strong link to the aff because if the aff says its a generic link and they need a specific one, you better have something specific, even if its analytical. Just explain it in the 2NR and you have a good chance.
7. Case: Bread and butter of debate. I love seeing a good impact turn, and I'll definitely listen to args like dedev. If you take out their offense then you win. Prove a solvency deficit and you win. Many debaters have a good angle to win the case debate in the 2NR and then only use 30 seconds on case. Don't be scared to go for case. I will give a presumption ballot but you have to win terminal defense to the entire case.

Things for overall debate: Don't bring new off-case into the 2NC. Not only will I not vote on it, it will count against you. New case args are fine in the 2NC, as long as you said something on case in the 1NC. I am fine if you barely touch on case in the 1NC and then hammer case in the 2NC. That is great.

I am fine with you timing yourself, I will also be timing you. Don't go over time. I am fine if you finish your sentence, but don't drag it on for 20 seconds, I will not flow new things after the timer.

Also, don't be mean. We are all here to have a good time and learn some things, especially in novice. I understand being assertive and that is actually very good, but

In the end, debate is supposed to be fun. I want this to be fun for everybody.

If you have any questions, email me at blaserdebate@gmail.com

Me

(she/they) - mariannegriffithdb8@gmail.com

This is my 4th year of debate at maize high school - i was a 2a for 3 years, now a 2n

----

For novices! - Try your best and be confident i will be happy to answer any questions after round and provide any help you need - Extending arguments into the rebuttals is key to being able to win and going for your best arguments in your last speeches - speak loudly and give a road map of what you're going over

----

Overview

Tech>Truth

I try to make myself very easy to read so you'll know what I'm thinking during the round

Speed is good but clarity makes speed possible

debate is a game.

read rehighlightings

i will not vote on out of round stuff

I hate theory debates, ugh, please do not be the team that throws the debate away and goes 5 minutes of condo in the 1ar. go for substance. PLEASE. I also think that perf con is probably just an internal link to condo - I think that condo good answers it by itself

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I will just assume it says X.

my predispositions here don't mean I won't vote for an argument if you're winning it. they are just my preferences - debaters should be able to say nearly anything they want to in a debate - judges should adapt to debaters

tell me what to do and how to vote - i hate judge intervention and you will see me start to rip my hair out if i have to connect the dots for a team to win

Case

Impact turns please and thank you - does this mean wipeout? - i would rather not, but it's your round.

I went for a whole batch of impact turns heg bad and democracy bad the ones i read the most

Topicality

competing interps are good

aff should go for reasonability is a solid arg and mishandled a lot of the time by the neg - substance crowdout as an impact is almost always dropped and can turn and outweigh lots of impacts the neg might bring up

I will really really not want to vote on dumb interps these things include [t-increase, insert thing is not included in the plan text, not a big fan of vagueness/aspec args - vagueness favors the aff]

you should explain the vision of the topic under your interp - these include things like caselists and tvas

Counterplans

I will judge kick when told to

Probably not the best for complex competition debates - i've only been in a competition debate once (so far) and it was a practice round lol - If this is your 2ar strat than you need to be clear and concise

I think i lean toward condo good, but i honestly don't have that strong of a preference here, i could go either way on it - tbh i'm not going to like this debate if it comes down to it - i don't like theory debates that much especially since they're done, well... very badly...most of the time

DAs

fav is ptx <3, I think link debates are important. low risk of link or sus link = low chance of ballot. impact calc is also super important here. Evidence comparison is good.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

Ks

I've went for the k a good chunk of times - the two being fem and biopolitics

Over all, I have lots of experience with k lit including [afropess and its other variations, queer ks, orientalism, set col, cap, biopolitics, fem] - but i will need hand-holding on [pscyhoanalysis, baudrillard, bataille, deleuze, heidegger]

links of omission and to the status quo are not real links - so i'll definitely be swayed if the aff team goes for this type of argument - pls get better links y'all...

if your k relies on ontology then you have to win this debate or else you'll probably lose - ontology examples are definitely quality over quantity - you should use examples to implicate the K and how the world works (whether you're aff or neg)

I went for the floating pik a lot and won on it (an actual horrible amount) but, they're usually bad and it doesn't mean i like them- unless you say the words "it solves the entirety of the aff and circumvents the links" or articulate it as that i'm not going to weigh it as actually solving - blippy explanations are not real arguments to how it would work - if you barely mention it and then it becomes the 2nr i will rain hellfire upon you (jk)

rejection alts are alts but they're not very good ones

K affs

I'm think i'm OK for k affs - but i probably lean neg on a lot of things

I've always been on the neg against these affs. I think K affs should be in the direction of the topic and have an explainable theory of power that can be used against the neg's offense - solvency and actually having a mechanism are important in these debates whether that method be activism or something else

Clash and fairness can be impacts, but they can also be internal links - it all depends on the articulation that happens in the round - usually i find myself thinking that clash is a better impact

Quantifying limits and grounds for both sides are important here especially if you're going for the counter-interp, and when you're neg trying to prove loss of clash

usually counter-interps are trash and it makes the most sense to go for the impact turns

I've never seen a k v k debate

Clipping

I follow along in the doc. Meeting my minimum standard for clipping will result in a loss, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it

(stolen from Nathan Glancy)

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

if you want to accuse the other team of clipping then you need to stake the round on it

Misc

I've noticed an increasing amount of debaters just not letting the other team talk AT ALL in cross x and so i have a very low threshold for this because it's annoying and your speaks will probably get lowered

Disclosure is ALWAYS good and people are getting increasingly worse at it - i will most definitely vote on a disclosure interp if a team doesn't open source any of their docs and just uses cites- +.5 speaks if you tell me opensource (i will check)

cross x is always open unless another judge objects

pointing out author quals is good

I believe that debate should be taken seriously but it should also be a fun activity where people can express themselves. Any hateful comments or disrespect towards the other team or even judges won't be tolerated. Yes I'm still in high school and I've been debating for two years now

So yeah time for debate things: I love counterplans so please run them, they're awesome. No Kritiks. Please don't run them, I don't like them. Flow flow flow! It's so important! I don't like sprinting but speak at a pace that you can get your speech done.

Overall please don't stress about debating/speaking in general. Like I said I believe it should be serious but also fun.

I'm a 4th year debater at Hayden HS. I've debated on a lot of different circuits: Novice, JV, Open, and DCI

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

Pronouns: she/her

TLDR:I have a lot more experience with traditional policy arguments. That being said, do what you do best. The best debates are the ones when people do what they do well.

• Do not be disrespectful. I will intervene and contact your coach if I deem it necessary. We're all in debate because it's something we love, so I won't tolerate you making this an activity that people can't enjoy.
• Any speed is fine. Slowing down on analytics and tags is important, also giving some pen time makes me happy and will boost your speaks.
• These are my opinions on arguments but you do you
• Please feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round! Shoot me an email and I will try to be as helpful as possible :)

Preferences/Thoughts on Arguments

CP's: I've done a lot of kind of cheaty CPs in my career (consult, process, etc.), with that being said, it's not difficult to convince me that they're cheating. I'll vote for it if you win. High quality net benefit argumentation from either side is very persuasive to me.

DA's: I'm not opposed to voting for generic DAs, but whether it's generic or not, link analysis is very important, and I'm unlikely to do a lot of work for you in that area.

K's:The only K that I've routinely gone for is Cap, so anything with any other core lit basis will need a lot more explanation for me. You shape the K debate for me, tell me how to vote, why not to vote, etc. You do you.

T: Aff teams need a counter-interp or a we meet. Neg teams need explicitly stated violations and clear voters. 1Ns should slow down on voters because that largely shapes the likelihood of me voting on T.

]

hey, my name is ian mead. i have debated for three years at "The H" (hayden high). i have debated novice, JV, open.

i'm cool with speed. if your gonna go real fast, please slide me the documents either through speech drop or my email: meadian@haydencatholic.net

you don't have to call me judge, just call me "ian"

General:

arguments are not won or lost in cards, they are won by analytics and explanations. With that being said, analytics and explanations are significantly better if you have cards to back them up.

Neg Arguments:

HAVE THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. don't have a DA with just uniqueness or T with just a violation. you need all the parts if not, your just wasting time because I'm not gonna vote on half finished off case positions

T: i do not hesitate to vote on well run topicality. neg has to have specific violation and voters. if there is no we-meet or counterinterp provided by the aff, the debate is over after the 2AC.

CP: cool with CP's. CP solvency is big for me. gotta have a good net benefit. on weird perms, just stop.

DA: big fan of DA's, definitely a voter for me. link's are important; link chains should not be so far stretched that there isn't a clear way we get from point a to point b. generic Da's are great as long as you have a clear link chain. if you don't have a fully fleshed out DA, you not get my vote on the DA.

K: i personal do not have a lot of experience on K's. i have hit a few but have never run one. if you decide to read one, explain it more in depth.

I have opinions about all of these but run whatever you please.

Personal Preferences:

this is something personal but it's not something that will make me vote you down. don't debate so uptight, I get you want to look more distinguished, but there is a difference between being professional and being a puppet. at the end of the day, this activity is supposed to be education AND enjoyable.

i'm cool with open cross x as long as both teams mutually agree.

if you have any questions for me before or after the round, feel free to talk to me or shoot an email.

Hello, my name is Kaven and I have done High School Debate and Forensics for three years. I have been a judge for two years and have judged many different novice online tournaments.

Please either add me to the email chain or speech drop: oloughlinkaven@haydencatholic.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main things:

-Please do not lie and say you said something that you didn't say, stick to what you said don't change it because you messed up. This will result in an automatic loss.

-Be respectful in the round, there is no point in being a jerk because the other team messed something up.

-I do consider cx in my decision if you trip someone up and then show that.

-I am perfectly ok with speed but if you are speaking fast then slide the doc so I can follow it easier

-Make sure that you have complete off-case positions, don't run a T with only a violation and no voters or a DA with no clear link chain, I will not vote on half-finished arguments

-Please please use all of your Cross Ex times so that your partner can get some extra prep time, I don't care if you just sit there and sing broadway show tunes just say something to keep the time going.

-Same with speeches don't ever just not give a speech go up there and say random stuff.

Topicality:

-I will vote on Topicality, I do like seeing it in a round but make sure that it is valid and real not just a time waster. I do not like watching things run just to waste the affirmative team's time, there is no point to this, and is just lazy.

-Do it if you think that the aff is not topical and that you can convince me. I think that each team should have competing interpretations and both teams argue limits, ground, fairness, etc. Don't run T if the aff is obviously topical, please.

CounterPlans:

-I do like Counterplans but if you are going to run one please make sure that you show that it is better than the affirmative plan. Make sure that you have solvency for it, as well as either an internal or net benefit so you can have some impact calculus as to why it solves better stuff than the affirmative.

K's:

-I don't prefer Kritiks, but if you choose to run one I will listen, pay attention and follow it.

On Case:

-I vote heavily on case arguments. If you are on the Affirmative side make sure to show me that your plan will solve and is worth voting on. If you are on the Negative show me how the Aff's plan won't solve and just won't work.

-Please please use judge direction throughout the round. In your rebuttals, you should be telling me what I should be voting for in the debate and why your side has won. Even if you know you lost keep trying don't just give up. Confidence goes a long way.

-This is your debate, make it all yours. Run what you want this paradigm is just what I like/prefer, you don't have to use this as a guide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't call me judge just call me Kaven

If you have any questions ask me before the round starts or feel free to send me an email

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.