Hello, I'm Bennett! I have several years of experience in policy debate, so I've played the game. I consider myself open-minded, and do my best to come to a debate room to judge fairly and listen carefully. I do flow every round, and clash is very important in order to win my ballot. I would like to specify some things however:

File Share: My email is fractured so I would pref SpeechDrop, but if needed add bennettaddink52@gmail.com to the chain.

Topic Knowledge (23-24): Love this topic. I would say I'm pretty knowledgable, but I love learning new things so intrigue me! As this is Economic Policy, the squo is pretty fast-changing so contextual analysis is very important on this topic.

Philosophy- I treat debate as a space for education and the simulation of change. This space creates the future of our nation- producing knowledgable policy-makers, lawyers, activists, scholarly critics, and forward-thinking members of society. As a judge, I seek to make this activity welcoming and accessible. In other words, don't be toxic please! Prioritize being good humans over good debaters, if I feel like its a minor concern with this it won't affect my decision, but I will reflect that in speaker points.

DA's- I need a clear calculus and DA story in order to vote on a DA, if I don't understand the story by the end of the 1NR then its gonna be hard to win in the 2NR.

CP's- I need to be assured the CP adequately avoids the aff impacts in order to vote on it and it needs clear Net Benefits.

Topicality- I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless necessary. I default to competing interpretations but if you don't give me clear voters by the 2nr I typically won't vote on it.

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues. A few things here: I default to the policymaker framework, so in order to vote for a K I need a clear framework to do so. I have ran with Cap, SettCol, Empire, Neolib, and Security K's in the past, but am familiar with Identity K's (Race, Fem, Queerness, etc.).

Speed- I can typically tolerate high speed, but do not encourage it. As long as you are persuasive and logical. I will verbally say "clear" if it is too fast.

Complete disclaimer, I type kinda loud so if it gets unbearable let me know you won't hurt my feelings :)

Let me know if you need any kind of accommodations, i.e. dimmed lights, sit while speaking, etc. If there is a medical thing (like a sugar spike/drop) please let me know. Don't use your prep to resolve an issue such as that.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss of my ballot and a referral to tournament staff. I trust debaters to not welcome this into this sacred space of education, so I hope not to see any problems of this kind.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round. Have fun and good luck!

PS: If you manage to make me laugh then I'll give you +1 speaker points. Love humor in debate!!!!

Any questions about feedback can be directed to bennettaddink52@gmail.com or 24benadd@kckps.org

Former high school debater and forensicator, however not currently competing as a college student.

I'm still relatively new to LD, but as a debater I typically ran K's, so I have a competent understanding of value based/philosophical debate.

No speed preferences, go at the pace you deem appropriate

In my view, if you win that your contentions access the better framework you'll most likely win

Incorporating empirics in your criterion typically will sway my vote towards your side as a last resort, assuming both sides had an otherwise even debate

Not the biggest fan of broad values, make sure that value is clearly defined, measured, and backed in your criterion if you run it and want my vote

Don't be a bigot or you'll lose

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

Hello! My name is Liz and I have judged debate tournaments off and on for a few decades.

As a former debater, I realize how much work and practice goes into a good argument and presentation at each tournament.  I like to see polished and practiced students show off their amazing skills!  

Yes, time is a factor, but I have difficulty with auctioneer-type speed reading!  Steady and well-paced speeches are preferred.

I am always impressed when students are diplomatic, polite (yes that includes judges and the opposing team), and generous.  

Affirmative and Negative each have their pros/cons and obstacles.  I believe that practice, some occasional eye contact with the 'audience', and a clear, organized outline make a huge impact.

I have debated for 7 years, first in middle school then high school at Sumner Academy. I've also volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years. My default judging paradigm is as follows:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. Aff needs defend all stock issues to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA

CP: Not bad, am ok with PICs but can be convinced their not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The neg dropping a CP doesn't mean the perm drops (unless I'm told that's wrong).

T:

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of genetics, I'll probably need explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs except for a caveat (which I will get to). I don't really buy T or policy/state good args unless mishandled and I think these affs have a role in debate. HOWEVER, I hate rage politics or personal attacks against opponents. I get why calling your opponent racist or sexist helps your case, but it makes me disinterested, bored, and unable yo take your position seriously. If the opponents take the heat I'll listen but the moment they call you out it's an immediate loss. If you still want to run rage politics, direct your rage at the system or me: I can take the heat it's fine.

However almost everything (minus rage politics) can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static.YOU have the power to convince me to completely change my paradigm, and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

1. Number 1 is to be respectful to everyone in the round no matter what, you can be aggressive and respectful at the same time.
2. Love to see impact calc, cross x, and K debate but what is most important is you run what you are comfortable running and do your best
3. Lastly don't cater your arguments to a judge because they said they liked an argument, do your best and you'll be fine.

Experience: This is my third year doing high school policy debate at Sumner Academy.

What I prefer and look for in a round:

I prefer plans with evidence stating specifically how plan solves; give me the details, the funding mechanisms, time frame, etc. If opposing team points out vagueness in plan solvency, I'll be less likely to vote on that plan.

All off-case is welcome, but I will most likely not vote on topicality and find it a waste of time. Not a fan of extinction arguments.

Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano

Current Affiliation: Kansas State University

Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.

List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:

• Real world impacts.
• Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
• Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)

List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:

• Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
• Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.

Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.

List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:

• Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Impact Calc.

List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:

• Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
• Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.

Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.

Topicality is the most important issue. Is there a problem? Is there a solution? If the answer to either of these questions is no than what are we doing here? Tied to this than is solvency. Is the solution practical? Does the proposed solution create more problems than it solves? Debate should solve problems not create them. I am looking for what inherencies need to be addressed. Again debate is about solving issues everything should flow from that.

Please ask if you would like more details

Email chain: aliyahs.movingcastle@gmail.com

Experience:

2 years–MS Congressional Debate

4 years–HS Policy Debate

2013 Debate Kansas City Award Winner Top Policy Speaker, Top Policy Debater

2015 KSHSAA 2-Speaker Award Winner

Summary:

I try to be open to different types of Debate styles, so feel free to have fun. One thing to note is that I do not enjoy Spreading, as I feel it takes away from the Debate round overall. I'm not always the most expressive, but I listen to everything throughout the round. I ask that everyone be respectful, and refrain from any negative remarks that are on the basis of race, gender, or sexuality. (No racism, xenophobia, sexism, transphobia, or homophobia).

I do flow every round, but I also appreciate a concise and consistent structure for the speeches.

Affs:

My preference is usually toward engaging and analytical Affs, but if you don't follow that model strong analysis and delivery is something I always look for.

Not a big fan of Framework or Topicality.

DAs:

I don't really like generic DA's, but will still go for them if there is a clear link to the Aff.

Impact Calc is something I find crucial in a round.

Counterplans:

Open to them, but would like to see a definitive structure to the argument.

K's:

Strong preference for K's. I thoroughly enjoy them, but ask that the analysis is substantial & clear. Links are your friend here!

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

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.