I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

I will vote on anything I'm told to vote on. I prefer and default to policy maker.

Stock Issues- Not typically something I weigh very much. Topicality is only a voter for me if it's made clear that there was abuse and standards/voters are carried through the round. For the aff side of topicality counter definitions need to have independent standards/voters. 

K- I don't keep up on any current Kritiks, therefore do not expect me to automatically understand the basis, links or alt. I will need you to break it down for me. 

CPs/DAs- I don't care if they're generic or if they're specifically case linked. If the mpx of the DA merit an alternative or down-vote for the plan I will vote on it. CPs are similar, if's generic but still an acceptable or preferable alternative to the aff plan I will vote on it. CPs do require a calculated impact analysis.

Theory- I find it to be mundane. It should only be ran if the round needs to be "rule based" or framed in some light. 

Spec/Abuse- Similar to theory. I probably won't vote on it. 

Speed- I'm good with moderate to somewhat rapid. The faster you go the better you need to signpost. I haven't judged in a few years, so good signposting and emphasis would be greatly appreciated. 

I will most likely not give an oral critique. If you have any specific questions about the round I will answer those. 

I am a lay judge which means I have never been a debater myself. I get frustrated if the speaking is so fast that I can't follow the argument. I try to flow with the speakers and am swayed more by researched arguments with statistics as opposed to outlandish "logic". 

Savannah Bonilla

pronouns: she/her

Be kind to your opponents!! Yall are here to debate not perpetuate a culture of hostility :)

Email Chain - savannahgrace2302@gmail.com

Experience: 4 years of high school policy with Salina South, currently doing LD and NPDA at Kansas Wesleyan University (2022 PKD Parli Champ ;)) and assistant coaching for Salina South.

I am a mom, and a student on top of being a part of this activity, so this early in the year prob don't assume I am as deep in the literature of this topic as some.

There are some things you should slow down for me. I am gonna flow the speech and not the doc, if you have a really dense block that you fly through as fast as you can, I'm gonna miss some of it.

Your 2AR / 2NR should write the ballot for me. I appreciate impact calculus, I appreciate clear analysis in analyzing arguments. The debate shouldn't be a block reading contest, I want to see more analysis and refutation. For the love of god engage with the material that you are reading.

Framework or K Aff: If I'm your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I'll try my best to evaluate both args as fairly as possible. Rounds that I have seen on the question put me at 50/50.

I think debate is a game, but, I am not a fan of judge adaptation, I think you should run what you want, and I will do my best to follow. Big theory debates are going to be frustrating for me to work out, and I will be less confident in my decision. Don't assume I am going to be familiar with every concept that you bring up, if I look like Im not getting it, im prob not.

I tend to be tech>truth, though I hold a lot of value in debating truth and have a low threshold for takeouts of low truth arguments. I don't feel as though I am as 'tech' as some of my peers, it doesn't mean I can't follow, but I might not be as inclined to make my decision here.

I will probably make a decision rather quickly. It doesn't mean that I am not paying attention or evaluating your arguments, I usually just don't need a long time to sort things out. I'm probably going to give you a pretty short and sweet RFD.

I don't think I'm hard to read, if I think your argument is bad, you'll probably see that on my face.

Be nice to one another in the round.

Will I listen to a K? Sure. I have voted here before but you are going to need to do some work.

"I am a K team - all I want to do is read the K, all of the K's, both sides, K-it-up, should I pref you?" Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I will happily listen to your K but it's safe to assume I am not read up on your specific k lit. If it looks like I am not jiving with your K, paint me a picture.

Disads and Counterplans? yes, please

Do you need to shake my hand? No thank you, knucks will suffice :)

Can we go fast? Sure.

Head Coach of a large 5A Program. I debated 4 years in high school and in college. Will listen to everything. Speed is fine. Tell me where to flow and how to vote.

Don't give me generic arguments without specific links. Make sure you understand the literature and explain - not a fan of endless card reading and no analysis.

Stock Issues

Francisco Guardado [He/Him]

Email: fguardado163@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for four years at Salina South High School, mostly KDC, but I did dabble in DCI.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, just do it well and don’t be racist/homophobic/sexist. I’ll do my best to adapt to your style. Be clean on the flow and explain things that need explaining, I.E. don’t assume I’m a cybernetics fanatic. Cool with speed if your opponents are.

Topicality/Theory

Personally, I believe that topicality is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove in-round abuse. Same with other theory arguments.

Disadvantages

Yes please, I love disads. This goes for all arguments, but please do impact calc - if you don’t it’s going to make my decision frustrating.

Counterplans

Not a fan of counterplans, but you can run them if they have a net benefit. I believe counterplans are conditional, but don’t abuse that.

Kritiks

Not well versed on many K’s. I am familiar with cap, queer, set col, and feminism. Anything else, please take some time to explain. Must have a framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs. Case.

Framework / Kritik Affirmatives

If I’m your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I’ll try my best to evaluate both arguments as fairly as possible. I tend to be 50/50.

Speed: Moderate Speed/Conversational

Arguments: On case and off case not a fan of kritiks.

Experience: Four years of high school policy, for years forensics,one year of college speech.

Judging style: Stock Issues/Policy maker

Just make sure stuff links, makes sense, reasonable arguments.

Email: kumk5835@gmail.com

I would call myself tab but there is no such thing as tab and everyone who says so is a liar, they're all offense/defense judges because there is no such thing as a blank state everyone has their preconceptions about policy already.

Mine are as follows:

T is incredibly important and I will pull the trigger on this arg as long as you A. win your standards, B. explain the internal to your voter, C. win that your voters outweigh, and D. do the work on reasonability. In terms of voters I definitely lean towards fairness, I'm still willing to vote on education but if thats you all-in in the 2ar/2nr be warned. For me to vote on reasonability you probably have to win race to the bottom, and you have to have a pretty solid we meet. I evaluate reasonability like a perm. Ask if this is unclear in any way.

Das are cool, most of them are bullshit and if you're just shotgunning args onto the flow to outspread people, you have to do the work and if I dont understand your I/L story I'm not going to vote here if they have any decent ink on the flow. I also believe in terminal link deficits, meaning I dont care if they concede 8 extinction impacts if they can realistically prove that there just isn't a probable link. 1% risk is pretty bad for debate tbh.

K's are awesome, I love cap and state an bio-politics, I have a pretty solid grasp on most k lit present on the high school circuit, but if you're doing something wacky, just be clear why im voting for the alternative. Ex: if you read an unintelligibility alt, and don't say its an unintelligibility alt, you just are unintelligible, I'm not going to vote for you.

"pre/post fiat": Stolen from my homie Kenton Fox: I think the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" misconceptualize the function of an alt. Explain the alt as a methodology that can resolve the links and impacts of the k/1AC instead (this in no way means you shouldn't make in-round claims. Example - if you're reading psychoanalysis most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon the ballot, whereas if you're reading histomat most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon plan action proper. Most of the time when you talk about the "post-fiat" level of the alt you're just describing the world of the alt, which should be accessible (at some level) through the judges endorsement of the alternative

Perf con: I prefer the term ped con or pedagogical contradiction but w/e idc. I will vote on perf con if the alt is epistemic or pedagogical analysis. I believe these alts are best as 1-off or at least with DA's that are not morally contradictory. If you read a "counter-reformist reform" (silly term) 1ac with a indicts of the negs DA impacts, the DA doesn't even necessarily have to be morally contradictory at its core as long as you win the indicts. This does not mean I will always vote on perf con dont assume that you don't have to do the work.

K affs are fine, just have a warrant why its ok to be non-topical in the 1ac and you should still be tangentially connected to the topic. If you arent that cool but you're going to have to do a lot more work on the framework page or I'll just vote neg on fairness.

FW is just a way to evaluate the structure of debate, including the pedagogical and epistemic benefits of the activity. Framing is how the judge should evaluate impacts. This distinction will just make my flow clearer, and make it a lot easier for you to extend your framing/FW as my RFD in the 2ar/2nr.

Condo. I will vote on it if you win the standards/voters debate. I will not vote on one or two conditional advocacies, but past that you hit the point I'm willing to pull the trigger. Multi-plank CP's where each plank is condo is incredibly abusive and I will vote on this near 100% of the time as long as you do the work. I dont like these dont read them please.

CPs are fine, just not delay or multi-plank.

Disclosure: I hate this arg. Im liable to just toss it out because large schools with access to resources benefit the absolute most from things like wiki disclosure, and if you're a small school having disclosure read against you I will vote on an RVI; call it hacking, I don't care.

I want big questions and even bigger answers.

Johnke3883@gmail.com

As the judge in this debate round, I stand as a sentinel at the forefront of technical debate, wielding the principles of strategy and skill as my guiding stars. In this arena, where arguments clash like titans and ideas are the weapons of choice, I vow to uphold the sanctity of precision and expertise.

1. Disadvantages (Storm's Wrath): Just as the relentless storm in Fortnite sweeps across the battlefield, disadvantages serve as the tempests of debate, threatening to engulf unprepared adversaries. Here, we recognize the supremacy of foresight and preparation, for those who fail to anticipate the storm shall be swept away by its unforgiving force.

2. Counterplans (Tactical Loadout): In the arsenal of debate, counterplans stand as the versatile tools of strategic warfare. Just as a seasoned Fortnite player carefully selects their loadout, so too must debaters meticulously craft their counterplans to outmaneuver their opponents. Here, we exalt the art of tactical ingenuity, where every move is a calculated step toward victory.

3. Topicality (Boundary Enforcement): Let it be known that within the realm of debate, the boundaries of the resolution are sacrosanct, akin to the confines of the Fortnite map. We stand unwavering in our commitment to upholding the rules of engagement, for in the absence of order, chaos reigns supreme. Here, we champion the cause of clarity and adherence to the established framework.

4. Kritiks (Foundational Deconstruction): Behold the kritik, a weapon forged in the fires of critical inquiry, poised to dismantle the very bedrock of opposing arguments. Like skilled builders in Fortnite, we deconstruct with precision, exposing the vulnerabilities hidden beneath the surface. In this realm of intellectual warfare, we celebrate the pursuit of truth and the relentless quest for enlightenment.

5. Case Debating (Fortress Defense): The case is our fortress, the bastion of our beliefs and the embodiment of our convictions. Just as a vigilant defender in Fortnite fortifies their base against enemy assaults, so too must debaters defend their case with unwavering resolve. Here, we champion the virtues of resilience and strategic acumen, for only through steadfast defense can victory be assured.

In this grand arena of debate, where minds collide and ideas take flight, let it be known that technical prowess shall always reign supreme. For it is through the meticulous application of strategy and skill that we carve our path to victory, leaving an indelible mark upon the annals of intellectual history.

So rally forth, noble debaters, and may the spirit of Fortnite guide your every move. For in this epic struggle of wit and wisdom, the vanguard of technical debate shall forever stand triumphant!

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South and head coached at Sacred Heart high school.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

Tabula Rasa

I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.

Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.

D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.

K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer. 

Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.

Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

I am a fourth year debater who competes in varsity tournaments. I do not care how fast you speak as long as it’s understandable and you sign post. Starting with a topical aff is good along with neg running disads and possibly a counterplan. If you understand your arguments and show to me that you do, then I'm more likely to weigh that side. Saying your partner is going to answer everything is not the way to go. I also really love analytical arguments.

I am intrigued by K's, but please only run them if you understand them...

My decision is usually made by my flow. I see how the arguments correspond and if they made sense and how you delivered them.

I have no preference as to how the “perfect debate” should go and i'm open to any arguments as long as you are able to defend them. However 8 minutes of topicality is not how I imagine things to go so please steer away from that, I won't vote it down if it's a reasonable argument but it does make for a rather bland debate and there's endless arguments out there waiting to be made.Clash is a must!!

Flowing: tell me what I need to look back at and cross apply!

The aff should know their case enough to be able to look at me while they speak, not with their noses shoved in their computer. I believe delivery is super important, the more passion and interest you show the more persuasive you sound.

I love cx. I believe cx is super important for not only clarification but for setting the round into motion.Trapping them is good, helps set up your arguments and shows the drive to defend your side. However that’s not an open invitation to be a complete jerk.Rebuttals need to be delivered in order of the debate and I expect you to tell me every argument made and how your case is to be preferred.

good luck!

Experience:

3 years High School Debate

4 years College Parliamentary Debate

1 year CEDA College Debate

12 years Coaching High School Debate

Tabula Rasa but default to Policy Maker.

Please tell me how and where to vote so I don’t have to make that decision for you because you probably wont like it.

I favor quality of arguments and evidence over quantity.

Speed: I am ok with speed to the point that it is applicable to real life. The reading so fast you gasp for breath has no purpose in real life. Slow down on tags.

Make sure you give me a roadmap and signpost! Staying organized is key to a successful debate if you are jumping around and not indicating what you are arguing or where I should flow it may lead to trouble. I will flow it where I think it goes but that may not be what you want.

Analyze cards and weigh their relevancy in the round.

I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly.

Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot.

I'm a head debate and forensics coach.

Debate: Steps for judging.

1. I look at stock issues first on the affirmative side, HIPS Case (Harms, Inherency, Plan text, Solvency)
2. Then look to prove your plan is Topical if the Negative brings a logical Topicality issue to the board.
3. I look to see if the Aff Case has more benefits(ADvantages) than DisAdvantages.
4. Most of my Reasons For Decisions (RFD) are based on the aff proving the problem is there, they can solve it without harm coming from the plan. Statistics will help here.
5. If the Negative disproves a stock issue, the topicality of the plan is unclear, or proves a disadvantage of the plan happening, the Negative wins.

Forensics:

Speech:

1. Organized logical thoughts and structured speeches.
2. Wants to communicate to their audience (Before, during, and after the performance)
3. Presents, Proves and Explains a Thesis (Opinion about life)

Acting / Interpretation:

1. Presents a teaser that develops an exposition
2. Transitions to an introduction that presents a theme (life lesson)
3. Gives strong supported emotional reactions to the text and situation through blocking, voice, expression, and transitions.
4. The text is presented as a mini-plot line with rising action (beginning), climax (middle), and resolution (end).

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is good or bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

Intro

My name is Isaiah, I am currently in college studying History, Political Science, Social work, and philosophy. In high school, I debated all 4 years and did forensics all 4 years also. I have not judged a round this year so new to the topic and arguments.

MOST IMPORTANT!!

There are three things that will decide a round:

1. Education- debate is about learning how to develop critical thinking skills, speaking skills, arguing skills, and analytical skills. You are supposed to learn from the rounds you debate in and it should be a continuous learning process.
2. Explaining- if you don't explain, then there is no case being made. After every argument you make, explain it and link it. Tell me why it matters or why I should consider it in today's debate round.
3. Impacting- impacting is one of the best ways to win me over. You should impact the significance if you do/ don't go with the affs plan. Why is it significant? What's going to happen if the aff plan doesn't/does pass? Tell me!

Ultimately, the debaters will dictate how I vote. I am open to anything, besides T, I don't like T.

Tabula rasa, but like for real.

Kritik and kaff- love em, but if you read it you need to know them don't just use it to use it. Also if your from a small school i think you should use them more. As for lit familiarity I've ran anthro, sec, and set col. I'm cool with you doing others.

Da- I'm cool with any kind of Da I don't care if it's generic. Other than that tell me how to weigh em

Cp- pretty familiar with theory around it but this is the only plase I have legitimate bias, perf con is good.

T- Im good with T I really enjoy a good in-depth t debate but if you want to run them like a time suck go for it ig.

My default is policy maker but if you want me to use stock issue instead I can.

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

Preston Vicenzi - Prestonvicenzi@gmail.com - Add me to the chain

Pronouns - He/Him

Experience - 4 years of debate at Newton High School, I have competed on the local circuit but I attempt to gear myself towards faster national/TOC level styles of debating but also debated a lot on the local circuit.

A Little About Me - I think that debate is a game, and I think in that game, everyone should have the most amount of fun they possibly can. Run whatever you'd like, even if it's flat earth procedural and other silly arguments, let's have fun. One of the biggest influences of me staying in debate was WGLF and the community of debate.

So Let's unpack...

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

For Novices - If there's a style of debate that you feel comfortable doing, then by all means showcase, but for novices I just want to see that you know the basics down. After a round with me, I will give advice on how I would do it from your standpoint, but get those fundamentals, Case and Advantages vs Disadvantage and Topicality or Counterplan. If you're going to try to run a K in front of me atleast know why the Kritik is important, after that, then I'll give you advice on how to go for it. Have fun, and know that I am not here to go for jugular.

Everything Else...

Impact Turns > Link Turns - ON this note, I love impact turn debates, dedev, Warming Good, etc are good arguments and always are clashy, bonus speaks for going 5 min turn in the NR or AR.

Speed - Speed is good if both sides are cool (don't bully newcomers to Varsity or TOC level style) - changing your tone isn't going to work for picking up authors or tags (I am deaf in one of my ears, so bear with me), so please signpost and give me a little pen time when your going to the next arg. I prefer analytics to be somewhat slower.

Tech>Truth - I believe that everything is fair game, I have and will vote on randomness - I love wipeout, spark, A-Z spec, and Ashtar. Anything and everything can be an argument if it's structured into one. I will not influence the round with anything from my perspective.

Speaks - Everyone starts at 30 and every infraction will make you decrease - Just pure block reading will put you at a 27.5 ceiling. I stand with other coaches who say that if you're just going to read blocks, then you can send your docs and do the debate that way, specific in depth debate like CP's from their evidence or rehighlightings are big boosters. I'm a sucker for ethos pushes, I LOVE PASSION!

DA - I don't believe that there's no chance of the link or the impact. There's always a chance which is the weight I give to the neg. However, the neg needs to win at least one calculus claim in the 2NR if you want me to pull the trigger on the DA. For the aff, I think that if you want me to substantially drop the DA, I want to see a flow of a combination of good attacks, I think going all in on a no link or no impact claim while good if done right, still gives weight to the DA which gives them wait on the case flow.

T - GO FOR IT... I love T to the moon and back, and as a smaller school kid, going for T feels dangerous, but is ultimately sometimes the best bet in almost all the situations. I hate PTIV, its bs, but whatever, it's filler and usually doesn't make it past the 2AC unless it's dropped. Limits/Ground are practically the same thing so you can combine them when running T. If you're running multiple T's just cross apply your standards and voters, same with answering them, it's a major time suck. I default to competing interps unless I am told otherwise and will strictly go off of which definition provides a better impact inside and outside the round. Cards for violations are fire and under-utilized because then it snaps a bright-line because now you establish they are outside of the realm with actual ev. I am down for reasonability because I can agree to an extent that competing is a race to the bottom in all instances. If the 2NR is 5 minutes T, Your speaks are going up +.7 no questions asked.

CP - I love analytical counterplans or ones that are made by using the other teams evidence, because that's fire and is creative. I love theories on the CP, (and I will get more into that later). Specific solvency is overrated, general solvency will do just fine for me, but if you have specific ev you should use it. Going for it - if you decide this is the strat, I need to know why there's more than solving the aff, your net ben should quantifiable in the debate round and should be a reason to prefer. Second, you need to make sure that you explain in the block (before the 2NR) how the CP works and how it accesses the aff which should be a no brainer, but the amount of times someone has shoved a CP down my throat while running 3 off, T,K and CP while extending it for 10 seconds to blow it up in the 2NR is maddening. Perms, those are cool, I say don't do more than three because at that point your just doing nothing because the neg can just combine and answer all of them. Counterplans that are consult or Agency can probably be permed and theoried to hell and back. Lastly I believe that counterplans have fiat unless I am told otherwise by the aff.

Theory - PLEASE - Theory is so underrated, and outside of Condo, I believe that there's reasons to do more than just reject the arg. In fact, if there's work done, I believe that perf con or even fiat bad are reasons to reject the team. If the work is done, it's a possibility. If you go 5 min in the 2NR/2AR all theory, you will see a smile on my face. However, if you do take this risk know it's not guranteed, and I will give leeway on rejecting the arg and not the team outside of Condo.

K - My K lit is the equivalent of a toddler that got out of preschool, I know your basics like Cap, Baudrillard, Afropess and Queer/Fem lit bases, but outside of that, you should explain your stuff. Even on my basics I still struggle tremendously, while I will be able to pick up some other K's like Undercommons, use the 2NC to go over it with me (I like the long o/v ngl). But besides that, I think the K should be impacted out, and EXPLAIN THE LINK. If I am post rounded because your mad that I didn't know how the K linked, I will direct you here. I believe that K's that solve the aff are best, but can be persuaded why the alt's world outweighs the oppressive world of the aff. On Framework, I believe that fairness is an impact and is a reason to prefer weighing the impacts of the case against the K, however, you need to explain why that's good. Espeically on frameworks that say that "The 1AC is an object of research", you gotta give me something to work with. DA's on FW are good and I love seeing people go for them.

KvK - I am not super familiar here, I will be honest, me and my partner always went for T, so take what I know with a grain of salt. I believe that if you're going to go for Cap or another K then you need to tell me why the alt solves the issues of the Kaff and/or outweighs on a material or epistemic/pedagogical level. Furthermore, you'll need to explain to me why prioritzing that argument on FW is best.

K-Affs and T-USFG - I believe that a K-aff should be tangentially connected to the topic in some way. If you are spouting something outside of what the resolution is about, then you'll have to explain how it pertains to the round. GIVE ME A ROLE OF THE BALLOT, if I am left with a Kaff and policy with no ROTB or what my ballot does, I am going to default to whatever I can find on the flow. Specific evidence is good especially if your model is bolstered by the ballot or that the ballot is key to the spillover. I want to see presumption top of the neg case page, and the aff needs to defend that there's something outside of round or why the in round effects is key to accessessing a spillover claim or change. On T-USFG, niche debate is good, and I will go out on a limb and say that Kaffs are more educational than policy, HOWEVER, fairness is by far a better voter for my flow and I also think that argument building and debates over than 2 off Cap K, T is good. Tell me why voting for neg or aff remedies damage inside or outside the round. Being planless means you got to do work on why the model I am going to voting for is the best choice in the round and why supporting policy-bros is no good. TVA's are very persuasive to me, let me know how the TVA can resolve the links and offense in the 1AC

Other Stuff - If you do anything racist, discriminatory, sexist, xenophobic or anything that makes someone feel worse coming outside of the round like just pure bullying I am going to sign a ballot with 20's and call it good, while I also give you my decision reprimanding you to not do that again. If you do it after you were told to stop, I will personally go to your coach, and if I am in the Kansas district, I will know who your coach is.

If you want me to look at a piece of evidence specifically during the decision time tell me.

• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Debated for 4 years at Remington high school

Love good clash in debate rounds

Please give an off-time road map before your speech

I am not a big fan of K arguments 

If you are going to run topicality or a counter plan please make a strong case for it I care a lot about the validity of your evidence

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.