Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

Debate experience: Competed Jr & Sr years of high school (MANY years ago) with some success. This is my 3rd year judging debate, and have also judged forensics/Lincoln-Douglas.

Preferences:

Not a fan of speed reading. A quick pace is great, but more words/minute don’t equal a better argument.

Don’t care for counter plans. I see them as a diversionary tactic to avoid the real debate. I’ll judge fairly if a team chooses to go that route, as it’s a legal maneuver, but not that’s my personal preference.

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

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.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

Experience: 2 years college policy, 5 years parli, 5 years NFA-LD, I've been coaching a combination of HS policy, CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD and Parli for 9 years.

Email for the chain: bowersd@moval.edu

Online Debate: A couple of things I think are important before starting. Please make sure that your computer is plugged in before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there will be tech problems throughout the year, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot.

I'll talk about some things here to maybe clear some questions you may have but genuinely whatever you want to do. If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Impact framing: Sans an alternative I think that death is the worst impact in the debate, but I'm very willing and happy to listen to other impact framing arguments.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps, that being said I'm open to whatever method you want in terms of evaluating the argument. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

CP: Awesome, fun, I don't think I've met a counterplan I wasn't in some way a fan of from a strategic standpoint. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

K: I don't have a preference for any type of alternative, I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 12 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I need you to explain clearly why each argument matters and why I should weigh one argument over another.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

I'm a former high school policy debater and current litigator - I say this because my approach to judging debate has changed over the years given my professional experience. I'm more of an in between flow/lay judge now.

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

- I think political arguments, e.g. Republicans in Congress won't pass the plan, are annoying. As the judge I am the legislative, executive, and judicial branch, if I sign an affirmative ballot then Congress passed the plan, etc.

- Dropped arguments are not necessarily the winning ticket for me. You still need to explain/argue the point, clash, at least once, on their arguments. Just telling me to pull the argument through is annoying - at least explain why their silence on the matter is an issue.

- Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide.

- Keep to decorum and maintain a degree of candor with one another and me.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature and very much appreciate a well-constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. Strike to the core of their argument, and show me the underlying structural issues.

Theory/T- I am unlikely to vote on a cheap-shot theory argument unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. However, that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-I despise CPs, especially in JV and Open. I think they are used as cheap shots to catch inexperienced teams off-guard. I will NOT vote for these.

Ultimately, I'm approaching your round with few preconceived notions and expect you to give me well-structured arguments.

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Hello! My name is Ruby, and I did debate for all of one year in high school, but have done debate judging a few times over the years since. I assess debate rounds over how much the arguments make sense and how compellingly they are presented. If topicality is actually applicable, I think it can be compelling, but making topicality for the sake of topicality doesn't really make sense. Generic disadvantages are acceptable (not preferred), but present them in a way that demonstrates the connection between that and what the other team is talking about. I will be honest and say I don't quite understand kritikal arguments, but if you can make a good kritikal argument that makes sense, go for it! Talk at a comprehensible please, arguments are really only good if you can understand them, and understanding needs to take into account speed. Most of all, have fun!

I debated in highschool, went to JDI camp multiple times, and regularly debated DCI and TOC tournaments. Plan texts are fine and if you don't want to read one that is fine also, my opinions will not come into play. Feel free to read any arg as it will make it on my flow, only caveat is that all conduct in the round be respectful. Any questions are welcomed before the round.

I debated for four years in high school and competed in 4-speak regional and state tournaments during that time. I have judged two rounds on this year's topic prior to this tournament.

- Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

- A stock issues emphasis is my default, but I can be a policy maker if both teams take the round that way. Debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them.

- I am extremely flow oriented and a clear roadmap and signposting is ideal. I don't mind speed/rapid delivery as long as the presentation is clearly enunciated and I can keep up with the flow.

- Counterplans are rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

- Topicality is fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

- I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

- I do not like kritiks and prefer specific real world arguments.

I will leave it up to you to keep your time in all debate events.

Flashing isn’t including in prep time.

Slow down or you’ll lose. Spreading is a fun trick, but I want to hear your argument.

Be prepared to share your cards. I might ask for sources at the end!