I have high school, collegiate, coaching, and judging experience in policy, LD and BP debate. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well-vouched for, with specific links and clear strings of logic. I value the educational value of debate, so I ask that you use your evidence responsibly and communicate clearly and effectively. These factors, along with the content of the round and the overall persuasiveness of your arguments, will determine my decision on your ballot.

Communication is the most important thing to me. If that is compromised by your argument presentation, you should rethink your strategy. Otherwise, all arguments are free game to me, given their appropriateness and sound rhetoric!

I think of myself as an ordinary voter of general intelligence. I won't apply any speciality knowledge I might have in the round itself, but I will think through things. If you can make that thinking easier on me with good link chains and strong warrants and impacts, you will likely win the round.

Thank you and good luck to all!

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

Hi, I'm an ex debator and forensics kid, but hello, I'm Ethan Harlow. This might get a bit long, but please read it through I'm a weird kind of judge. I don't care what arguments you run, make them clear and concise. The ballot might not have many "complaints"/advice because I prefer to give them to you in the round, or I just forget to write them down.

I debated for 4 years, and didn't take it absolutely seriously, but I still like listening and watching to people who take it seriously. I hope you don't be a bad human to the other team.

TLDR: Make your arguments understandable and not melt my brain within 30 seconds.

I have done debate before, so I know what I'm doing.

I'm not a big fan of Topicality, but I'll listen to it. If that's what you prefer to read, or if it's obvious the Aff is untopical by all means read it; it's just a personal preference.

Off time roadmaps are a must for me.

I enjoy clash. If you're just reading cards at each other and not actually discussing the topic, the round won't be enjoyable for anyone.

Have fun during the round. If you're not having fun, I'm not having fun. Debate is supposed to be something you enjoy doing, make sure it stays that way!

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

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

two years in college at The University of North Texas

Currently debating at Emporia Sate University (Stingers Down!)

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

Current assistant coach for Emporia High School (KS)

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

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

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

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

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

Specific arguments

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

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

First and foremost I consider this a speech event, so clarity and good pacing is important.

I like debates about stock issues and on case arguments. I do not like K. at all. Counterplans are okay as long as you make sure to address the aff completely and know that I will expect a very logical reason I why I should vote for the CP. I like a clearly laid-out A1 with a road map that is easy for me to flow. CX is extremely important and I don’t like questions that are time fillers or simply ask to repeat plans unless the aff is unclear.

A good DA is great but be sure it goes beyond the generic. And PLEASE don't go apocalyptic!

Stay topical or prove the Aff isn’t beyond just saying that it isn’t. Make me believe.But aff needs to address T if it is brought up.

Be sure not to drop arguments in your rebuttals and don’t bring in new evidence.

If you can be logical, clear and concise, and respond to all arguments you stand a good chance of winning.

I appreciate respectful behavior and disapprove of rudeness or directly dressing down your opponent.

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

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

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

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

General Debate Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.

Oklahoma LD

Only Warning

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

My thoughts on the current topic

I'm very familiar with the state topic (Resolved: The primary objective of the United States criminal justice system ought to be rehabilitation.) I have written cases, judged rounds, and coached kids on this topic. In my HUMBLE opinion, the literature on this resolution is pretty bad at least when looking into the policy side of it, which has caused debaters to Frankenstein some of the worst stuff I have seen. I'm not really sure why nobody is writing phil cases on this topic (it would be insanely easy and would be way more persuasive to a lay audience). Instead, I'm seeing these really poorly written affs where the links are garbage, and the impacts don't compete well enough with the neg. Aff's need some creativity and to play around with the wording of the resolution, especially the "Primary Objective" part. I have seen so many affs fall into the trap of making this a rehab-only vs. a prison-only topic when the resolution isn't saying that. You are making this so much harder on yourself as an aff by doing that. As well as, these ultra-specific advocacies are really messing up your aff. This is not a question about a policy but rather an obligation. I don't think reading a plan is a good idea you should be encapsulating why rehab has a higher obligation than the alt. Just up your creativity and think a little harder when you make your cases, and you will be better off. Neg's stop with these trash counterplans: first, they are not even structured correctly, and second, they aren't competitive. If any aff knew what a perm was, these counterplans wouldn't make it past the 1ar. Negs, you can also use the "Primary Objective" part. Remember, as a neg, you can still have rehab you are just not prioritizing it, or you can go a different route and say that it is impossible to prioritize rehab for (Insert reasons here), and then you can run an ought implies can framing of some sort to really stretch it to its full potential. Also, put in some NIB (Necessary but insufficient burden) arguments in there NIB'S are so easy and would make this 100 times harder for the aff.

Oklahoma LD (General Things)

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

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

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

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

Public Forum Debate

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

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. It looks lazy, shady, and unethical. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem in PFD specifically)

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you weigh and crystalize at the end of the round, you will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.

1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

2. My speed threshold is around 8.0/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please slow down on the analytics you don't put in the doc; if I can't hear them, I won't flow them.

3. Open cross is fine.

4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.

Prefs

1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .

2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.

3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.

4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.

5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.

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.

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

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

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

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

Topicality - Don't be stupid with it.

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

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

AFF - GOOD POLICY IS KEY.

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

I am a Tabula Rosa with a default in Policy.