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

v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think do many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

I prefer an email chain over speechdrop, but I've accepted that's a losing battle at this point. Just add me to whatever you end up doing.

She/her.

My background: I debated for Lawrence Free State for three years, but did not debate in college. I'm currently an assistant coach at Free State.

General preferences

Read whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I care more that you know what you're talking about than that you're reading an argument I personally like. There are only two exceptions to this rule:

1. I don't particularly want to listen to arguments about death or suffering being good. If you read those arguments I'll attempt to judge them--but I'll also be pretty stressed and annoyed at you, so don't be surprised if I'm not able to evaluate the debate very well.
2. Bigotry of any kind--racism, transphobia, ableism, etc.--isn't OK, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Speed is fine, but make sure to enunciate on tags. Most of my debate experience was in fast rounds, but it's been a while since I've had to flow those rounds, so maybe consider starting out at like 90% speed.

I don't have a preference for policy vs. the K/reject the res affs/whatever other "controversial" arguments people talk about. Other than the two exceptions listed above, I don't really care that much what you read.

The 2NR/2AR should tell me the reason/reasons that I should vote for you. Line-by-line is important, but you need to be able to explain which arguments matter and why. The winner of the debate is the team that convinces me their advocacy is better, not the one who showed off more raw technical skill.

A corollary to that is that comparative impact calculus isn't only for disad/case debates. It's just as important to tell me why your impacts to T outweigh theirs, or why the solvency deficit to the counterplan outweighs the net benefit, for example.

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. That means you tell me what is true, why it's true,and why that matters.

tl;dr read whatever you want, however you want. Convince me your advocacy is better than your opponents' and I'll vote for you. Winning an argument isn't enough, you need to explain why that argument matters more than the ones you're losing.

These things aren't as important, but could end up affecting how I evaluate the round:

T

Topicality is underrated. Don't just read blocks, take the time to explain your internal links and tell me why your vision of debate is preferable to theirs. I think fairness is probably an internal link and I tend to lean towards competing interps as a framing question, but I can be convinced otherwise on either of those questions.

Disads

Take the time to contextualize the link evidence to the aff. Even if you're reading generic evidence, you should still do the work to explain why it's relevant in this specific situation.

Comparative impact calculus is a huge help to me at the end of the round. The team who does more of it will probably have an easier time winning my ballot.

Counterplans

This is the argument I went for the least when I debated. I'm pretty much 50-50 on the question of whether PICs and sketchy process counterplans are cheating. I'll vote on theory args, but I'm not predisposed to do so.

Competition debates where each side reads a million definitions of the word "it" and doesn't impact them out are annoying and I never really got the point to them. Impact out severance and intrinsicness (?) args, and tell me what the world of the perm looks like. It's a test of competition, not an advocacy.

The K

I went for Cap a lot in high school, I read a fair bit of theory/K lit stuff in college. I'll probably understand the claims of your K at a top level, but I won't know the details. I'll know if you're just using buzzwords without understanding what they mean.

Other stuff:

The debate isn't over until I sign the ballot, and until that happens there's time to make a comeback. Don't underestimate the value of being creative and flexible.

I really don't want to tell you to clear. Please don't make me do that.

Signposting, both before a speech and during the line-by-line, is invaluable and will make my job flowing the debate dramatically easier. I'll be annoyed if you don't do it.

If you tell me "it's sent" and I open your email and it contains a PDF attachment, I might cry.

I'll try to follow whatever the norm is for speaker points at a given tournament. In general, expect between 28 and 29 points, with 28.5 being average for the division that you're in. Above a 29 mean I think you have a good chance of doing well in elims.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

My paradigm is that I am a dog and I need to be told what to do. I should be able to flow easily and be able to understand your arguments. Walk me through what you believe and why I should believe it. I try to approach each round with a veil of ignorance. I do not believe it is my job to have you adapt to me. I need to be able to understand the arguments and understand how my ballot would impact the world.

In so far as what my breakers are like how I value arguments hierarchy is

• Body count (both US lives and lives in other countries. are equal to each other. A life is a life no matter the country)
• Real Money estimate of what it is going to cost either way and why that number is reasonable
• Not escalating straight to nuclear (I need to see a clear and connected line, not just as an offhanded comment)

Things I will not tolerate

1. Not being respectful of your partner, competitor, and fellow judges
2. Going too overtime and not respecting the clock

Overall debate is a great activity and I am glad you all are here competing. It should be fun. Thanks for having me.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Sean DeMaree - Educational Debate Judge

As a judge I look for debaters who take time to develop well thought-out, organized, and direct arguments. Sometimes a well formed statement can have a higher impact on a debate than a rambling speech without a direction. In rebuttals, I desire to see debaters responding to the important issues rather than focusing on the presentation or words of the competitors. By sticking to the topic, the audience is in a place to better understand the various viewpoints on the issue. As arguments are developed, I encourage debaters to focus on citations and articles that add value by being relatable, easily understood, and avoid overly technical or complicated approaches to the issues.

Above all, students should remember that respect to towards opponents is paramount. Putting down of opponents through belittling or berating adds no value to the argument, and distract from the presentation of evidence. We are all working together to engage in high-level arguments that are centered on skill of debate and presentation.

please add me to the chain– kareemhammouda@gmail.com

I’m a junior at KU. I debated in high school (open). For the 3 years since I’ve been coaching at SMS, mostly working with novices/2nd years. The extent of my knowledge on the topic is the novice case-list.

Because I did open, i’m most comfortable in slower debates.

I'm most familiar with policy oriented arguments, as this is the extent of my experience; However, I am absolutely open to other arguments as long as they are explained well.

Please be organized, signpost, provide roadmaps, etc.

Tell me how you want me to evaluate this round–ex. impact calc is important.

Disclosure is good

Cut cards ethically

Don't clip (I pay attention)

Racism/sexism/ other isms won’t tolerated, and will lose my ballot

TLDR; I’m a policy maker fLAY judge

If you have any specific questions let me know!

People seem to misunderstand this so I'm putting this at top to make it clear. I will vote on any argument because I am tech > truth. Run what you are comfortable with. These are just my general thoughts about debate. Don't run an argument that you think I would like just because. If you don't know how to run it properly you probably won't win.

hudsonhrh7@gmail.com put me on email chain or email me any questions

General:

He/him. I debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years. I'm now an assistant debate coach at ONW for 2 years. I competed in both policy and LD. Debate should be an activity for everyone, and if you prevent that from happening in the round, I will vote you down. I have done a pretty even mix between DCI and KDC, but I would definitely prefer to judge a DCI style round.

I am fine with speed but I would prefer if you slowed down for tags, analytics, and theory especially because I'm not debating anymore.

I'm tech>truth maybe too much

I hope I can make my biases clear. Even though I say there are arguments I do and don't like that doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments, so please run whatever you are comfortable with because that will make the most educational round for all of us. I will do my best to adapt the debaters in the round. So, if you prefer to run policy arguments that's fine too. If you run weird arguments go for it. However, I will not vote for any racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia good or any similar argument.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm before the round!!!!

Disadvantages:

I never really used these in flow rounds when I debated because I don't think they are good arguments compared to other things that could be run. That doesn't mean I don't know a lot about DA's. I would run some pretty specific and weird disadvantages when I debated. Generic links are okay but can be easily defeated by a smart team. I'll listen to politics disadvantages but this is not the round I would like to see. Theory against DAs can be cool.

Impact turns:

I like impact turns because I feel like they are underused. I ran heg bad a lot and ddev sometimes.

Counterplans:

Rarely used counterplans but when I did they were usually really abusive. PICs are fine. Delay and consult counterplan are less fine and you should watch out for theory but still acceptable. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Theory is fun I will vote for anything if you do it right.

Kritiks:

I ran one-off ableism a lot, usually attacking language, representations, and generic links to the topic. I also am very familiar with fem, intersectionality, Nietzche, and cap/neo-lib.I have read some Baudrillard, psycho-analysis, and afro-pess lit so I understand most of the concepts, but don't expect me to be familiar with all the different niches. I am comfortable judging all types of rounds.

Doesn't need an alt if you can impact out how the K turns the aff, wins framework, or gives me a reason to ignore the affirmative impacts. PIKs are acceptable especially for language/reps Ks.

Floating PIKs are maybe abusive but you can win the theory on that by using your K as an offense or any other way but it is still a risk you have to be willing to take. Please explain your alt and how it solves. The ballot can be alt solvency if needed and explained. Severance on perms is a voter but be careful how this interacts with other theory-based arguments you have already made on why we shouldn't be looking at education or fairness etc.

K-affs:

I ran a k-aff with a plan text that would either fiat my alt or I would kick plan later in the round after reading a K. Your plan doesn't have to relate to the resolution, but it would be preferable if it does. If you are negative against a k-aff your best strategy with me as the judge would be to run a K. I feel like lots of teams put themselves in a position where they are defending policy or the state action which the aff team probably has prepped against. Running a K makes the framework debate easier, will catch the team off guard, and can turn the aff. I do think switch side debate can be good. Not too familiar with performance affs but I am very intrigued by them if you want to run it please do

Topicallity:

I love a good technical T debate and will vote on T even if the plan is perfectly topical if the neg has good impacts.

I default to competing interpretations. I belive your interpretation is your model of debate and that voting on T is meant to prevent certain affs from being run debate wide. I don't think a definition needs to be contextual to the resolution. If by the end of the round it produces the most [insert T voter here] than I will use that defintion to evaluate the round.

I feel like a lot of teams think that a dropped standard means they won T. Think of it like conceding the other teams solves for 500 lives when you solve for 1000 lives. If you don't articulate how that conceded standard acceses the T impact the most you won't win the round. For example if they concede a limits standard it would be smart to go all in on depth>breadth. It is also good to impact out voters, ie people quit debate which means education is decreased writ large. K teams feel free to impact turn T thats always a fun time. I will vote on time skew RVIs, but I also believe that topicallity is not an RVI most of the time unless they are running multiple interps. RVI's can also be abusive. Basically, I am open to any theory argument if you can argue it well.

Theory:

You can run theory agaisnt anything if you believe hard enough. That being said you have to have a good impact that is clearly articulated by the need of the round

I love theory arguments and would like to see an in depth debate here. I will vote on blippy dropped theory arguments if all the parts are included (need to see some resemblance of interp some standard and voters) and it is thoroughly impact it out in the round. If you drop a theory argument your best way to win is weighing your inherent voters and trying to claim education gained (or some other voter) outweighs the education lost. Theory spikes aren't used as much in policy but I think they are cool and test a teams ability to flow and respond to every argument. Might be abusive tho. A lot of the stuff I said for topicallity applies here.

Only place I intervene is obvious egregious clipping and won't allow new args in the 2nr(unless justified) or 2ar (never allowed even with justification unless justification is in previous speech then it wouldn't be new arg)

Stock issues:

Inherency/harms/significance is only a voter(most of the time) if the plan is already happening. Please impact out why this is a voter because the affirmitive can still generate offense off of advocating for a plan that already exists. I think circumvention arguments are cool and will vote on them if they are sufficient (don’t think durable fist applies to everything the aff will claim). Solvency deficits are good and underused arguments and remember to bring them up when weighing impacts.

Framing:

I don’t default to a utilitarian framework for evaluating impacts, and don't believe magnitude outweighs probability by default. I don't think I ever ran a extinction impact unless I had to throw together a crappy DA because the judges in round made me. Since I see myself as more of an LD debater, framing debates are very important to me and I think they are underused in policy. I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to.

Framework:

I made lots of framework arguments when I debated and I will defintely vote on them. I like a good role of the ballot. It shouldn't be self serving, but if the other team drops it then I guess it is over for them if you continue to meet the role of the ballot as the debate goes on. I believe that the affirmitive and negative should be viewed as a body of research and that plan focus is bad. However, like any argument you could argue me out of this. I think education is more important than fairness, especially in terms of a framework debate. Fiat is illusory is a real argument because it is true. I'd like to see clash on out of round impacts as much as possible whether it is fairness, education, violence, or some other impact. I think fairness should be used to show how education is lost or how they further an out of round impact.

You can use framework still in round with normal affs and no K's. If you did this I would be pretty happy. Honestly don’t know why more teams don’t do this

Final notes:

DEBATE IS A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE. To reiterate, I am very lenient about what you run, but if it doesn't include certain groups in the debate space or blames certain groups of people you will not like the ballot at all.

Please have fun that's all I really care about. Don't make the debate bad for another participant.

Daytona Hodson

Previous Olathe Northwest debater for 2 years (Including quarterfinals at Novice State)

Overall, debate is an educational event. Every competitor should actively participate and contribute to the argumentative landscape. This means promoting a environment that is inclusive of everyone (ie. being polite during CX and other team's speeches), yet competitive to decide a clear winner of the round. The first thing I look for in round is professionalism.

Topicality: While Topicality is meant to establish a more educational definition, I understand topicality as a time skew. When explaining topicality, I want to see all parts of the argument (Counter Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters). Without the key parts the entire argument can be lost. As the Aff team, meeting the interpretation of the Neg is good, but I strongly urge the Aff to provide the interpretation they used to develop their case to promote the educational aspect of topicality. Tell me why to prefer the definitions, debate the definitions. Use education and fairness as your reasons to prefer the counter interpretation.

CP / DA: I prefer a traditional negative argument including CP's and DA's. I look at DAs in four parts UQ, Link, Internal Link, and Impact. I prefer argumentation on the Link and Internal links as it directly brings the DA into relation with the AFF case, but if they have been already debated, Impact debate is the next best option. If the round consists of several different types of impacts (Dehumanization, poverty, war ...etc) I want to see framework on which Impact should be preferred. This can be in the form of Impact Calculus (Magnitude, Time Frame, and Probability), card evidence by an author, or both. Addressing framework should use impact calculus as the reason to prefer the other interpretation. CP's don't need to be topical. If they are topical, that is perfectly fine, but explain why it can't be achieved under the AFF plan. Also, if a CP does not have any net benefits, then I will not vote on it as you shouldn't prefer the CP. I will vote against the argument, and not the team. As long as you run other arguments, I will continue to look at your other arguments not apart of the CP.

K's: If I had to choose to hear or not hear a K, I would lean more on the NO side. I'm not familiar with K debate. I am open to hear it, but you must explain the importance of each piece of evidence and type of argument. If you run a K and the other team drops the argument, Obviously it is an easy vote for the team that ran it. If you want to run a K-AFF, same thing applies.

Theory: I support arguments with Theory about Fiat, Topicality of CP's, and other arguments. The largest piece to win my ballot with theory is to explain why debate overall is better with it being changed. Use Fairness and Education as the voter.

Inherency/ Solvency/ Advantages: Inherency is why you should be passing the plan. If a Neg team can prove that the plan has either already happened or the problem doesn't exist, then the NEG will win. While advantages are benefits to passing your plan, they are not the reason to pass your plan. I will vote NEG if the plan doesn't solve. If the NEG shows that the case will not solve, then your plan no longer has advantages. Circumvention is a viable argument, but the NEG must prove all of the solvency is gone and not just a small part of it. Even if the AFF still solves for some substantial amount, they will win on Solvency. For any governmental circumvention case by the NEG, I am open to listen on how the plan will be circumvented after it's implementation. On Advantages, I look to see that the AFF prevents the largest impact in the round (look at how I measure impacts in CP / DA section). I also look to see if the advantages you claim are probable. Maintaining the link story is the most important part for an AFF team to maintain their advantages in round.

Flowing / Judge Requests: I often cross apply several arguments when flowing. The evidence used in one argument will be compared to the other evidence used in the round. I also please ask don't speed read. I think it completely devalues the entire point of debate. Obviously talking fast is perfectly fine, but if the goal is to run a ridiculous amount of off-case arguments just so you can say that the other team forgot to address 1 of your 5 arguments, that will reflect on your ballot.

I ask that you please provide me with a copy of evidence before speeches. This enables me to better listen to arguments and look into accusations of inaccurate claims by teams. I also ask for closed cross examination as it provides the most education for individuals during the activity. I strongly encourage teams to communicate with each other and track each others time. Unless specifically stated by the tournament, prep times should not include putting evidence on a flash drive. The most important thing I ask is for coherent road maps. If a team brings up new arguments in the rebuttals, I will not vote on them. A response by the other team directing me to the new argument would be appreciated, but not required.

While judging the largest thing I look for is sportsmanship. During my time in debate, I have seen the good, ugly, and bad. Don't make arguments personal attacks on other competitors. At the end of the day, you have to debate both sides of an argument at a tournament. After that, the best way to my ballot is preventing solvency. If the AFF solves, explain why the disadvantages overwhelm solving the problem.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

I can flow

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

Updated January 2023.

Yes I want to see your docs, so include me on the email chain (if you’re using one and not just doing speechdrop which is easier IMO). savannahlegler@gmail.com

I flow on my laptop on an excel sheet so there will be significant typing

My pronouns are they/them

Policy paradigm

I recommend reading this whole thing but I know it's long so TLDR; DO NOT SPREAD I will not flow it, likes Ks and K affs but you should understand the lit and IMO they can be abusive if you're just trying to confuse the other team, prefs specific (not generic) DAs, weird CPs can be abusive, T is meh (mostly because people don't run it right), other theory is ok. Framework debates will be prioritized over my personal preferences mostly. I don’t tolerate harassment/abuse of any kind, have warranted args, don’t clip cards, flow every speech in the round. Ethics philosopher cares about ethics so be ethical please. If you need to stop the round because of mental or physical health reasons, just tell me, I've been there

Background

I did policy all four years of high school at Olathe Northwest and have coached there for two years. I am a philosophy and psychology major at KU with a minor in women, gender, and sexuality studies. My favored branches of philosophy are ethics, political, and metaphysics and I’m specializing in abnormal psychology. I am familiar with a lot of theory as a result of my majors and experience, but I do have trouble remembering exact details like authors. I catch on quickly to new theoretical arguments and I thoroughly enjoy k debate. I’m not very familiar with the older style of debate (plan planks and contentions).

Truth informs tech. I’m not going to be voting on warrantless arguments or blatant untruths, that’s an abusive way to try and win the round and I think judge intervention is necessary. I think this applies most frequently to theory blocks, since a lot of times there isn’t an established internal link between the structural harms you’re citing (eg. neg block side skew) and the proposed solution (eg. aff sets framework). If you establish that internal link, it should be fine. My logic here is that you wouldn’t expect me to vote on a DA without an internal link, so why would you do that with theory? Additionally, I’m a strong believer that technical nonresponses to unreasonable arguments don’t outweigh winning substantive arguments and, because debate is about clash and education and discussion, I will always prefer to see discussion of important topics rather than arguments that are just there as distractions.

Overall, explain the things you’re saying because I’m not going to vote on an argument you don’t actually make (but I also won’t vote on warrantless args).

I think the idea that debate is a game and the goal is to win is extremely harmful. Just trying to dump cards on your opponent to make them slip up and not respond to something is slimy, same with running stuff and banking on the fact that the other team just won't understand what you're arguing. You're not helping yourself get better at analysis and argumentation by avoiding clash to win on technicalities and misunderstandings. I view debate as a space to have conversations and expand knowledge bases, a place for high schoolers to engage in political philosophy, and that requires everyone understanding what's going on and everyone operating fairly. Winning is nice, but unethical strategy in the name of winning is a major problem in debate. If this comes up as a meta argument in round, know I will not buy your debate as a game good theory, I simply won't budge on this one area.

Evidence

Don’t clip. It’s pretty simple to say “cut the card there” and send out a marked copy once your speech is done (I recommend spamming tab on your laptop to mark where you stopped because it can be easily done mid speech and makes sure your marked doc is correct and sent in a timely manner after your speech). I realize that, especially since I’m asking you not to spread, that you’re going to need to cut things off, but just take the two seconds to make me aware of it so I don’t have to get you disqualified for clipping (I really don’t want to have to do that). If your evidence is fraudulent or altered in any way, I will probably find out, and it will cost you the round and maybe the tournament, and I’ll chat with your coach about it. Just don’t do it, there’s plenty of evidence out there and it’s unethical to be making your own.

Aff burden

Aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, but this doesn’t exclude k affs. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to do a policy aff, but that’s not always what people go with. Relating to the res in an abstract way is valid if you can explain that. Be prepared to defend why your approach is best for debate and why your take on the resolution is necessary. If the debate ends and I’m unclear what an aff ballot means, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

Neg burden

A neg ballot is usually whatever you pull through to the 2NR. If you want to argue judge kick for a CP to also have the squo as an option, you’re going to have to do some theory lifting in order to get me there because I lean toward multiple worlds existing on the neg ballot being inherently abusive. Explain why it’s not. K alts and CPs are functionally the same to me, the difference is in the complexity, so just make sure your alt and what it means for the ballot is clear. If you're running a k with no alt you're gonna have to explain why you don't need one.

Speaking

Do not spread. I will not flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I have an auditory processing disorder. You don't need to spread to win. I get that you may find it annoying, but you need to be able to adapt to judge preferences and this is what I’m asking of you. I’m asking for speech docs for accessibility and to monitor for clipping, not to fill in gaps on my flow. You have to make connections and read off the args for them to get on there.

Keep track of what you read and what you don’t read and where you’re marking cards. Sending impossibly long speech docs (like whole camp files) that you know are more than you can read is bad practice. Essentially, trying to trick your opponent/the judge into believing you read a card you didn’t read is extremely unethical and over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you. Explicitly falsely claiming to have read a card in a previous speech is a round loss. You should be flowing your own speeches to avoid this happening.

Argument choices

You need to be running full arguments in your speeches. Starting a DA or T in one speech and saving the impact/voters for the block is abusive and not having those things at all means that you've wasted your own time because I can't vote on that argument. DAs need uniqueness, a link, and an impact (sometimes and an internal link). T needs an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

I love kritiks. This is probably not surprising as a philosophy major, and I do a lot of theory in my classes (I don’t just take major related classes so I’m familiar with economic oriented theory as well). I probably won’t have read exactly what you’re reading, but I’m familiar with a wide range of concepts and am comfortable with my ability to understand complicated arguments. The stuff I’m most familiar with is queer theory, biopower, settler colonialism, afro-pessimism, feminism, and anything relating to ethics. However, this is not a freebee to just run something because you think it'll confuse the other team. Philosophical discussions go both ways and I'm going to like your K a lot more if you're being diplomatic and helping the other team get your point so they can actually respond. In K debates you should be focusing on having a productive, fair philosophical debate with your opponent and that gets really muddled when all anyone cares about is the W. A fair warning about Ks, I will probably understand your lit better than you do, 9 times out of 10 this is the case, and this means I will notice if you don't understand the argument you're running, so best to run Ks you're comfortable with and not just something you pulled from open ev just for this round.

I will vote on topicality, but I think running it when you know an aff is topical is tacky (in a roll my eyes kind of way not a vote you down kind of way). However, I get that sometimes you don’t have anything else to run because you’re not a k team. Reasonability to me is more about there being multiple acceptable interpretations of a word, so if you’re not meeting any definition in the round, you’re probably not reasonably topical. I’m less lenient to obscure policy affs than to k affs on t and that’s a personal preference that you should be aware of (this is based on how useful I think each are to debate; the former not at all and the latter extremely). I’m probably not going to buy into t isn’t apriori to my decision but if you think you can convince me, go for it by all means. You don’t need 5 minutes of t in the 2NR for it to be convincing, but sometimes you need that five minutes to cover everything that’s happened on the t flow, so play it by ear. I don’t really enjoy t debates, they get really reductive a lot of times because it devolves into semantics for semantics' sake. I know some people are really into them, but I personally think there’s more important discussions to be had and throwaway t args are a waste of time. However, recall that I will vote on t because it is important.

DAs and CPs aren’t super interesting unless you have something that’s not generic. You can win on them, like everything, but I find big stick, low probability impacts dull and they’re one of my least favorite parts of debate. Politics DAs need to be updated to be relevant and even then, they’re a lot of speculation and fear mongering so be careful how you’re arguing. CPs are a whole can of worms and can easily be annoying to judge and abusive to the aff. PICs are iffy for me since the aff isn’t just coming up with the best possible plan, it’s the best possible plan and fitting in the resolution, but if you can argue theory for them then, as with most things, be my guest.

I prefer structural impacts because big stick impacts feel like sensationalized news headlines IMO, but it's not a hard preference in any way.

Theory is fun but needs to be clear and have internal links, as stated above. I don’t really have much more to say than don’t use theory as a time waster because it usually means it’s argued poorly, doesn’t apply, and makes you look bad.

A lot of people assume they’re winning every flow, but you’re probably not, so I recommend using the “even if” layering of argumentation in rebuttals to have flows interact with each other. Best to not assume you’re winning and built contingencies into your speeches for me.

Flowing

You should be flowing, even if it’s from the speech doc for accessibility reasons (another reason why marked copies are important, I did this all the time). If you respond to arguments that weren’t presented, your speaks will suffer for it, and obviously, not responding to a core argument because you weren’t flowing could cost you the round.

Apparently, y’all have decided prewritten overviews are the new hip thing. It doesn’t sound like a great idea to me, mostly because overviews should be short summaries of what you’re extending in the speech in the context of the current round (exception to this is aff case extensions, go ahead and prewrite those to your heart’s content). Every round shakes out different, so you should be adapting your extensions to what’s going on in front of the judge. Line by lines are very nice but I recognize they require a lot of organization. It’s usually better to go through each individual argument rather than doing each flow as an argument, since a lot of detail can be lost. Prewritten overviews that aren’t for unaddressed, pure extensions will be affecting your speaks.

Misc

I’m not going to tolerate any harassment, abuse, insulting, or exclusion in rounds (this is for extreme cases, which do happen, unfortunately). As someone who has experienced those things and been frustrated by judge apathy in the name of intervention philosophy, the debate space has to be accessible and equitable for everyone who is participating and that is the most a priori thing in a round. If someone is having a breakdown or is uncomfortable in ways I can’t visibly recognize, let me know and we can take a break. Your mental health and sense of belonging in the debate space is the most important thing to me and I won’t let other people compromise that for you. I will not tolerate violent, bigoted rhetoric being used in round. I’ve had people say I shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debate, to vote, or to make my own decisions because of aspects of my identity and I will absolutely not allow you to make these arguments. I am hard zero tolerance about this. You do not have the right to make the debate space unsafe.

Disclosure should be reciprocal in order to be ethical. If you wiki mined the aff’s case, you should disclose negative positions. In rounds where there’s a disagreement about disclosure, it’s unlikely to be the topic of my RFD, but I will probably have some criticism if there’s clear unfairness. Hold yourselves accountable for ethical practices.

The only time I will reject a team instead of an argument is on abuse/harassment/exclusion.

I was a debater for 3 years in highschool. I like to see clash in a round, meaning, if one team brings up an argument against your argument, please address it. I will be flowing the round and like to see a logical story from both aff & neg.

I am an old school paper debater. I don't want you to send me your speeches. I want you to speak them. I value enunciation over speed. I love a good piece of evidence but I also appreciate a logic argument.

Present your arguments in an organized manner and stay focus. I judge based on your ability to convince me that you have a solid argument, regardless which side you are on. Speak clearly and methodically to get your point across. Do not emphasize on speed for the sake trying to fit as many arguments as you can -- sometimes less is more and you minimize the risk of getting side tracked. Last but not least, have fun and good luck!

Current Head Coach at Lansing High School in Kansas, Previously Head Coach at Buhler High School in Kansas (traditional-style debate 4A school). I judge rounds regularly, and have for the last 10 years.
I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics @ Eudora High

General Things

Speed - clarity is important, Im more on the slow end of fast debate. Add me to the email chain and I can usually keep up ok. larissa.maranell@usd469.net

FYI: I have a degree in Biology, this is included b/c my threshold for answering crap science args is low. Im not gonna do the work for the opponent but they wont need to do much. Also bad logic hurts your ethos.

In Policy Rounds -

I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.

Kritiks: I enjoy them but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, If you cant make sure your opponent understands the K its not productive to the round, to you, or to anyone. You also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it. (TLDR- don't be lazy and I will weigh it)

I love a good T debate :)

In LD Rounds -

Value and Value Criterion are not just buzzwords, they are central to the LD form of debate, if you read them just to move on to your policy framework that isn't the point.

In PFD Rounds -

PFD is not Policy.

Make sure you give me framework in the 1st speech, Judge instruction is key.

Background

4-year debater from Pittsburg graduated 2019. Currently assistant coach at Olathe South

Experience in high-flow rounds both as a debater and a judge

Don't care how evidence is shared, but I personally want speech docs

email: marlerleyton2@gmail.com

General Stuff

I will evaluate the round in whatever lens you tell me to, I'm very very open to most arguments. Only thing I will say to be careful of is that I will not do work on the flow for you, I expect you to tell me where to vote, why I'm voting, and what the ballot means when I sign it.

Tech vs Truth - I'm pretty middle ground on it, I find it hard to believe that tech outweighs truth completely and vice versa

If you want vote on cheating or anything like that, you need to give me a quality block and undeniable proof. Sending a picture in an email chain where I can barely see the whats happening because it is so blurry will not cut it at all. If you're accusing a team of doing something that should lose them the round then you are going to have an extremely high burden and you better not have done anything shady during the round as well.

No new in the 2 please

If you keep the flow clean there's a 90% chance that you'll get my ballot from that alone.

Specific Args

Ks - Open to all types of literature and args, I'm not as well-versed as I would like to be, but I do love the lit and spend time outside of the debate sphere studying it as well so I won't be completely lost. I'm very well-versed with Cp Ks, Set-Col, Imperialism, and some nihilism. Most other lit I'm comfortable with and will understand, you'll have to keep the flow clean and explicitly state where you want everything to go.

DAs - Pretty much every DA will fly, Trade-Off DAs will have a harder time finding my ballot I think there's a ton of thumpers on them and you'll have to give me a pretty specific chain here otherwise I'm probably going to err aff. Tix DAs are 100% acceptable and you can get my ballot a good chunk of the time, only thing I'll say on them is don't blow up some random super tiny piece of legislation it needs to be something that actually matters and can have an impact on the world around us. Outside of that I'll just evaluate it based what you explicitly state.

CPs - Open to all CPs, just be prepared to argue theory if you run 3 CPs with condo on all of them, severance CPs you'll have to do a ton of work on the flow with as well so just be smart and use them strategically rather than just as an arg you can throw out at any time.

T - Love T debates, I will judge them harshly though, I was a big T debater so if you aren't pulling through and debating your standards/voters then it'll be really hard to pick up my ballot

K Affs - For the most part the same opinion I have on Ks applies here, I like the lit, I find it interesting, and I'm always open to the arg as long as you can justify on the flow or you can win the framework debate

Theory - Need a good reason for it or you need to provide real quality argumentation or I will not vote on it

I look for a few particular things when it comes to choosing a winner in a debate. First, I analyze body movement since it lets me know that you are prepared and confident regarding your information, and it looks professional. The second thing I notice is eye contact and verbal application when speaking about the topic. I would like to hear formulated explanations with reasonable reasons why I should choose your side. Provide a good argument on why your side is better than the other team. I like an organized rebuttal that explains the overall round and standing position while respecting each other. You don't need to change your speaking style, but I want it to be understandable.

I vote on respect, organization, confidence, and informative and reasonable points. I like to see a team prepared with a good answer/ evidence for any question during cross-examination. I do enjoy when a team has the upper hand and catches the other team off guard. Also when someone is ready to debunk and offer a better point. I will never vote on topicality unless it is entirely untopical. I will vote on reasonable kritics, and if given one, I like a firm response. I don't like hypothetical arguments; give me evidence and explain WHY it's important.

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

I participated in HS debate in Kansas for 4 years in the early '90s. My judging is based on that experience and I tend to lean on the stock issues (topicality, inherency, significance/harm, solvency) as well as the presentation of advantages/disadvantages.

Honestly, I tend to be old-fashioned in that I like a debate round with a good solid case that is argued. I will listen to counter plans and DAs but they do need to be applicable to the case.

I do not mind some speed but I still like there to be some emphasis on speaking skills and presentation.

I will vote on Topicality if it truly is applicable but make sure you are doing T instead of significance.

I have voted for K before but it needs to be good, applicable and succinct.

Be polite, logical and please do not change history.... For example don't say something such as World War II was the only world war. Doesn't the two imply a one?

If you have questions, ask. I always forget something.

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

I am a high school teacher and a lay judge.

When I'm judging, I appreciate a slower pace; spend more time explaining your thoughts to me instead of trying to cram multiple ideas into a set time limit.

It's important to me that debaters treat each other with respect.

I've had Ks explained to me, but I am not compelled to vote on them.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.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.

jspiersdebate@gmail.com

Most Important

I think I am equally good for policy and critical debates - which is reflected in judging history. I vote on the words that are on my flow. The implication of tech>truth is that I can't write out arguments no matter how much I disagree with them, so much to my dismay I will be judging hidden aspec 'til the end of time. I judge based on the relative risk of positions unless given an alternative impact frame.

Bad for "they said something else in another debate and should lose," and for "my opponent is bad for interpersonal reasons." Don't care about falsifiability, I think the first contravenes the nature of debate (switching sides inev) and the second is just awkward to be in (wins and losses aren't good for conflict mediation).

I don't read docs after the 1NC until a card doc is sent, I don't fill in gaps if they're your fault and not mine, and I really like numbering. I flow on computer, I type rather fast, and I used to line everything up, but realized the sisyphean nature of this task and it doesn't really change my decision.

Clarity is a substantive constraint. If I do not understand the functional utility of the arguments you're making while I am flowing (or at least based off of the words I have on my flow) it is unlikely that my decision from reading the cards is going to dramatically shift that functional understanding. Ex. if you are extending like a turns case argument on one part of a DA as a uniqueness argument for a part of a case turn and you don't say that I'm likely just going to be confused and not going to psychoanalyze your decision and instead try to simplify as much as possible.

Burden of proof precedes burden of rejoinder- making an incomplete argument justifies blowing it off/ new answers when the argument is complete (this also applies to recontextualizations that dramatically shift understanding, revealing unclear tricks, etc...) If you're worried that forcing your opponents to play minesweeper with bad args is going to lose to truthy args, make the better and complete one earlier. If "late-breaking debates favor aff" is true (which it is), wouldn't it be best to vertically proliferate ASAP?

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. I think this way because the justification for reasonability is often question begging for me. How can I determine that an interp is "sufficient" or "good enough" if not comparative to another interp? I think you are better served to make the argument "their interp is arbitrary/unpredictable" as an offensive reason to prefer instead of an impact framing argument.

Everything is or is not an impact - fairness, clash, fun, etc...

In a theory debate with no impact calculus:
---Neg on PICs
---Aff on Process (for perms)
---Predictability > everything else for T

You may think, paradigm is short - agreed, but find basically everything else has little utility in prefs. I like everyone else like debate that is more specific and deep, find debates over the topic enjoyable, and want to vote for the team who is nicer to their opponents.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

I did speech and debate for Free State High School for 4 years from 2013-2017 and debated at Johnson County Community College for 1 year during the 2017-2018 season. I did the 4 week camp at UMKC twice. I have not been very active in debate since then and have not judged yet this season so my knowledge on the topic is pretty minimal but I will at least skim the topic prior to the tournament. I'm gonna keep this short and simple. I'm a night shift ER nurse so if I look tired and dead inside, don't worry - I always look like that, its not you ????. Every respiratory virus on the face of the planet is flying around at the moment so no handshakes for me, elbow bumps and air high fives will have to do for now.

email chain: sswans13@stumail.jccc.edu

Arguments:

I had a strong slant towards policy arguments, especially during high school. I did have a partnership in college where we ran mostly Afrofuturism and some Afropessimism arguments. That being said, you do you but I need you to explain your argument well to me regardless of what you're running. My threshold to vote for your argument is much higher if I don't know what you're talking about. This is especially true when it comes to alternatives for kritiks and affirmative cases. You're welcome to run theory and procedural arguments but I would say these are the hardest arguments to get me to vote for just because so many are blippy with no actual contextualization to the round at hand and/or any actual abuse that occurred during the round. For kritiks, in general, I think your alternative actually needs to do something vs. "reject the aff" "reject whatever" or "do nothing" but I could be convinced otherwise with a good explanation and/or spin. Links that are actually specific to the affirmative are always vastly more persuasive than generic links. T debates are good if they're not blippy and are fleshed out adequately. For the negative: defense alone is not enough, you need to give me a reason to reject the aff besides the risk of nothing happening. The neg needs to play to win instead of just not losing.

TLDR; just saying words at me without telling me what they mean to your argument isn't going to win my ballot. Good spin > superficial argument dump.

Speed/Procedural Items/Conduct:

I did mostly fast debates in high school and college but it has been a minute so start a little slower to let me get used to you and enunciate. Don't sprint through your T or theory blocks at 100% speed because I will probably miss chunks of it.SIGN POST PLZZZ.

Don't be rude.

I will flow the debate and follow in the speech doc but don't expect me to flow off the speech doc. I will read or at least skim the cards, but even if I think a piece of evidence is trash, you still have to tell me that and why for it to be a part of my evaluation of the round.

Open CX is my preference but y'all can duke that out yourselves.

I keep time for my own reference but don't expect me to keep track of your prep or speech time.

Evaluation of the Round:

Tell me what you think is important for me to vote on for you, and why I shouldn't vote for the other team in your last rebuttal. If you don't do this, you don't get to complain about how I weigh your arguments.

This paradigm is pretty bare-bones and I've been out of the activity for a minute, but I've tried to cover what immediately comes to mind, feel free to ask me any questions you have prior to the round.

See also the paradigms of some people more involved in this activity than I that I basically agree with:

• Michael Shelton
• Nathan Peabody
• Eric Skoglund
• Azja Butler
• Lucia Scott

Games Judge to Stock issues.

Debate is a mental exercise where what is important ends up being what the debaters and audience establish is important for the round. The rules of the game are that the side that wins the most stock issues wins the debate.

That said this is debate and everything is up for it. I'm open to any of your arguments.

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

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

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

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

Please put me on the email chain annikavaughn7@gmail.com

I was a two-year debater at Olathe South but did forensics for four years. I judge quite often and can keep up.

As long as I have access to the evidence being read, I do not mind spreading, just slow down for tags and authors.

As far as arguments go for the most part, I am a stock issues judge. I do love topicality, if it is run well.

Above all else:

1. Please be respectful one another. Disrespect will not be tolerated, and you will be voted down.
2. Have fun! If you aren't having fun, you aren't doin it right!
3. Keep the debate educational, I would also like to learn during the round.

Have fun! I'm excited to watch you debate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy. 

I am in my 7th year of debate. Third year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

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

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

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

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

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

Case:

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

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

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

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.