1st time judging

not familiar with debate lingo

I present topics requiring a high level of decision analysis professionally.

I understand there may be conflict and disagreements, be respectful and don’t make it personal.

Thanks,

Penn

I will vote solely on how much I like your fashion.

My name is Dave, and I'm a parent of 2 debaters at Shawnee Mission East. I did not participate in debate when in school, and am not familiar with its intricacies. I do appreciate a well-reasoned argument, and prefer that the speaking pace not be extremely fast. I do not respond well to cocky presentations that fail to recognize the nuances of arguments, and the fact that there are likely viable pros and cons on both sides. Analytics will be very important - I want you to present cogently and convincingly in oral arguments, not just reading pre-created evidence. Given my lack of formal debate experience, if you intend to utilize theory, it will need to be well-explained. I want to learn and be engaged, not lectured to.

This will be my first time judging a debate tournament. I did complete debate in high school, however that was awhile ago. I currently serve as the Chief Innovation Officer for a midsize company in the KC metro. This means considering large pools of data, often from conflicting sources, and drawing conclusions that don’t have a black and white answer.

Hello, I'm Dav Bettenhausen a volunteer judge with Shawnee Mission East, and have a few preferences for rounds I judge.

• While I understand speed is a tool used by certain debaters, I do not appreciate spreading. To obtain optimal speaker points, ensure your speed and tone are understandable.
• Brevity is key – don't overcomplicate arguments. If the only way you can explain your points is through niche terminology and overwrought diction, your arguments fail to engage the audience.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and all volunteers in the tournament. If you use hateful language in round or afterwards I will drop your speaker ranking and it will influence my final decision on the ballot.

I can't wait to hear some good arguments in this tournament and hope you all have a good time participating!

Hi! I'm Jess Bettenhausen, a volunteer judge with Shawnee Mission East

• While I understand speed is a tool certain debaters use, I do not appreciate spreading. I believe effective communication is key, so keeping your speed at a conversational pace is essential for securing my ballot. If I can't understand your speech, I will not weigh the arguments.
• I believe that you should fully explain your arguments. If the only way you can explain your positions is through niche terminology and jargon, I'm led to believe it's less plausible. Again, communication is vital, and if I don't end up understanding your arguments, I'm less likely to weigh them in round.
• On that note, judge instruction is key! Clearly outlining the reasons that I should value your arguments, and why I should sign my ballot for you will help convince me greatly.
• I judge truth over tech -- though I will listen to impact calculus. I think that attacking links is an underutilized strategy for debaters and can be very convincing.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and all volunteers in the tournament. If you use rude or harmful language in the round or afterward, I will drop your speaker ranking, and such activities will influence my final decision on the ballot.

I can't wait to hear some good arguments in this tournament and hope you all have a good time participating!

This is my first time volunteering as a judge.

Pace - I need to be able to understand and follow yourwell-reasoned arguments - speaking at a rate I cannot track or understand will not win you any points with me.

Attack the argument, not the person. Be respectful of your fellow participants and the volunteers. I will mark you lower if I see personal attacks during or after a round.

How to win - I want to hear solid, concise, well-thought-out arguments, not the most arguments (see above).

I'm looking forward to hearing all you have to say!

Please make sure you speak clearly, with a reasonable tone, and do not spread.

Clearly outline why I should value your arguments over your appoints and why I should sign my ballot for you.

Keep arguments concise and avoid making them overly complex with elaborate phrasing and really specialized language.

Be respectful towards opponents.

I debated in high school and college — a long time ago.

I like clash and reason. Explain to me why your position is better than theirs. If all everyone has provided me at the end of the round is a bunch of evidence, with no reason, I’ll just make up my own mind based on what I know.

Listening to people read to me bores me.

Pick a fight and have fun!!

I debated in high school from 2001 to 2005. I haven’t flowed since then. Open to all arguments. Please go slow enough for me to understand.

Shawnee Mission East

Open to all arguments but judge as a policymaker -- how is your plan going to work in today's current political, economic, etc. environment? Talk to me in plain language & define terminology. Be able to explain your arguments in your own words which shows me you know what you're talking about.

I debated throughout my entire high school career at Winston Churchill in San Antonio, Texas (Class of 1992). I also debated at Baylor University. I've judged rounds at the High School and Collegiate level since leaving University, although the frequency of my judging has gone down over the last decade.

I am generally comfortable with speed throughout the debate, but be clear. If I am not following your argument, you will see it on my face.

I appreciate a solid debate around the stock issues and creative counter planning combined with well thought out disadvantages. I am open to theoretical arguments and kritiks - but simply filling the flow with baseless theoretical arguments won't get you anywhere with me. I want a road map before you speak (from the 1NC forward). If you are dropping or kicking arguments in the rebuttals, let me know so I can keep my flow clean.

Take advantage of your cross examinations. You know more about the arguments and positions you are advocating than I do. Use your CX time wisely to fill in the gaps.

Please feel free to ask me any further questions before the round begins.

Experience: Graduated KU Law 2011 where I was the Student Director of the Paul E. Wilson Project for Innocence and Post-Conviction Remedies in my 3L year. I was a public defense attorney in the state of Kansas until 2016, with trial experience at the district and appellate level. In 2016, I became a federal attorney in the Department of Health and Human Services, where I advise federal Administrative Law Courts in appellate matters involving the interpretation and application of Medicare policy and regulations.

Paradigm: I'm a lay judge/debate parent, with 1 year of debate judging experience. Good evidence matters, but it is most effective when used to support accurate analysis presented in a logical manner. I value straightforward, organized arguments showing a claim, a warrant and an impact. Sign-posting is appreciated, and clarity becomes increasingly important with speed. If you choose to spread, I may not be able to follow you - accordingly, it won't meaningfully impact your chances of carrying the round. If you're going to run a theory, be sure you can explain and support it.

Debate is an incredible opportunity for students to practice civil discourse and develop as critical thinkers. Remember to attack the argument, and not the debater. Be respectful of your opponents and the forum. I have no qualms about voting down a debater who displays unethical conduct towards their opponent.

Experience and Basic Paradigm

Volunteer LD Judge at a small number of tournaments; experienced public and business sector speaker.

Basic Paradigm

As a long-time member of the science and engineering communities, and an adherent to the works of Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge), I approach debates as a hypothesis tester, emphasizing resolution-focused rather than plan-focused arguments.

Rate of Delivery Preference

Conversational. I judge on criterion, logic, and the quality of arguments. Rapid-fire spreading does not impress. This is a debate of thoughts and ideas, and not a cattle auction.

Rebuttals and Crystallization

Line-by-line analysis preferred, with minimal use of technical debate jargon.

How to Win

I decide on the winner of key arguments in the round, not the most arguments. If it is close, then the better speaker – the person who best persuaded me – carries the day.

Hello, I'm Pratik Home, a volunteer judge at Shawnee Mission East. I do have a grasp on this topic, however, please take the time to explain to me what it is you are talking about, as I am new to judging policy debate. (don't throw in acronyms/abbreviations without telling me what they stand for) Here are some preferences I have for rounds:

1. Please, no spreading. Take the time to slow down and explain your arguments to me: simply talking fast will not win you my ballot.

2. AFF: Convince me why your plan outweighs the status quo. Also, please do not bring up new arguments in the 2AC; I will not consider these arguments when voting.

3. DAs: I'm fine with DAs, just be sure to explain uniqueness, give me a link story, and present the impacts.

4. CPs: Mutually exclusive CPs are great, just be sure to explain very thoroughly why it is mutually exclusive. Plan Inclusive CPs are a bit harder for me to get my head around.

5. Ks: If you run a K be prepared to explain it without using limited debate terminology. That being said, be sure to provide a link, impact, alternative, and well explained framework.

6. Theory: Topicality is great! Be sure to explain the different parts of it to me in simple terms though. As for other theory arguments, be prepared to thoroughly explain them so that I can understand.

7. General: Any "New in the Two" arguments I notice will not be factored into my decision. Any offensive or hateful language will also cost you the ballot. All in all, have fun!

I am a retired High School Principal. I spent 42 years in education at the collegiate and high school levels. My Principleship was in Indiana. I have served as a judge in many different contests, but am new to judging debate.

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

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.

New judge no previous debate experience.

I am a retired career federal prosecutor followed by a shorter career as a private practice civil litigator. I have judged both high school debates and law school moot courts. I have appeared before countless federal and state judges to put forth my legal arguments for whatever issue I am presenting. I believe high school debating is very important and a very valuable skill to acquire in order to speak succinctly and convincingly. My only concern involves what I call the "rapid speak" that now seems normal in these policy debates. Such "rapid speak" whether in the courtroom or public forum is inconsistent with effective advocacy as it quickly loses a jury and irritates a judge. A more deliberate and measured presentation, in my opinion, will better carry the day. But that's just my opinion. Good luck to you.

Max McCarty

I debated for a year in college at UTD for a Year, Coached at LFS for 3 years and now at Blue valley North. In HS I debated at BVSW and consitantly cleared at TOC tournaments my senior year.

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Tech > Truth

• I have a lot less topic experience/knowledge than I have had on previous topics. I will definitely need more explaining of things than people who worked at or taught at camps over the summer. This will still be true throughout the season as I spend less time thinking about the topic than in previous years. Simply because I am less involved.
• Over the last couple years of judging I have noticed a trend of people flying through analytics at top speed off the speech doc, if you want me to flow them it is in your best interest to slow down here. If you are doing this and not realizing it my body language will definitely tell you I am not flowing.
• I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
• not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

• I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
• I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

• I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

• I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
• round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

ksumccoy@gmail.com

Introduction

I'm an assistant coach for debate and forensics at Blue Valley North. As a theater and English teacher of nearly 20 years, interp. events are probably my strongest area. You should probably see me more as a community judge with some background in the event rather than someone that pays close attention. I'm more of a sponsor than a coach most weekends that just makes sure students get to their rooms. As of October 2023, I have only judged a couple rounds and have little contact with the topic research file.

Policy...

I know this isn's succinct and what advanced debaters are going to want to hear or debate to, but I hope the following helps.

1. I'm a theater and English Lit. teacher first. Don't just read at me. I think this is an oral communication event. Communicative issues and telling the story are still important. I'm not going to try to listen or flow speed. Honestly, I'm tired of people reading a powertag with a whole bunch of stuff they don't really understand or not linking it to the round we're in. I'll jump on the email chain/speechdrop, but I'd rather be listening to your rather than reading highlighted text.

2. I'd like to think that I'd listen to just about anything in the room and be willing to vote on it, but I'm probably a policy maker who prefers reasonable and probable impacts over magnitude. I haven't had a lot of Ks to consider or vote on so I'm not sure how I feel about them philosophically. I'm not a games player that will vote a team down for missing one minor arg. on T in the 1AR. I don't like ridiculous spreading args. from the neg. that then kicks everything that doesn't stick. I'd rather have a couple speeches debating the merits of an argument and find some depth than shell out ten things that don't matter.

3. I'm good with judge instructions. Explain to me why I should be voting a certain way. I'm not going to be reading every sentence of your evidence and make the arguments for you. I'm also not an expert in the event that will know every piece of the game y'all do.

4. If you open the abuse story in the round, you better not be doing it elsewhere. I think new in the 2 is typically slimy if off case, but I'm primarily talking anything running a ton of T you plan to kick in the 2NR, turning CX into a speech, stalling finding a timer and prep time, fiddling with the file share, et al. If you waste time on an abuse story when you could have used that time to debate this issue, or your opponent points out you were just as or more abusive in the round, I'll vote you down for wasting our time discussing it. Debate the topic.

Congress

I've scored a few rounds in Kansas invitationals over the years. Probably 5-10 rounds. I've used Congress as a model for various classroom activities and projects in my English and Speech classes and worked with students here and there on some speeches. I enjoy an efficient and respectful chamber with obvious connections and clash between speeches to show active listening. Yes, speeches will be prepared with credible evidence and relevant sourcing, but there should be clear sections responding to the debate in the room. Strong POs will be considered in ranking. As a theater director for 10 years, I'm used to watching the entire stage. You are always "on" in a session. A congressperson who is listening, engaging, efficient, and respectful will be rewarded over one who is simply domineering.

LD - I've judged these rounds here and there and at the national tournament, but it has been awhile. Be sure to take care of the value and VC debate as that is the framework that lets me know how to vote in the round. Evidence to show how real world examples have worked are great, but don't forget the values work. This is why I like this style of debate. We aren't focused primarily on the policy but the ideas and values. If you keep that in mind and can explain it for a theater/English teacher that prefers a communicative style, you'll have a better chance at the ballot.

PFD - Well, this is something I haven't seen a lot of, so I'd encourage you to look at the other comments regarding LD and Policy and cross apply to this event. Haven't coached it. Only seen a few rounds of it.

Hi! My name is Liz Meitl (she/her).

I'm looking forward to getting to judge your round!

I'm a high school English teacher and a college professor, and I was a high school debater. I'm comfortable with the way arguments should flow and I understand the vocabulary of policy debate.

My hearing has been hurt a little bit by my love of loud music, so I'd be grateful if you could speak up - especially if there is background noise. I value creative analysis and sincerely good manners.

I will do my best to give you good feedback - I hope you find it valuable. High school debate is one of the absolute best extra-curricular activities; congratulations on being involved in something that will have a very high return on investment!

First time judge. No experience judging or with lengo. Please be respectful do not make personal

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by cogent and persuasive (or unrefuted) argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to run a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

I approach debate with an open mind and a commitment to fairness and objectivity. While I don't impose a rigid ideological or philosophical framework on debates, there are certain aspects of debate that I prioritize when making my decisions:

1. Clarity and Organization: I highly value clear and organized argumentation. Debaters should structure their speeches logically and provide explicit signposts to help me follow their arguments easily.
2. Evidence and Logic: Sound logic and well-supported arguments are essential. I expect debaters to cite credible sources and provide robust reasoning to bolster their claims.
3. Debate Decorum: I expect respectful and professional conduct from all participants. Debaters should engage in substantive exchanges and avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language.
4. Adaptability: While I appreciate debaters who are well-prepared and articulate, I also value adaptability. Being able to respond effectively to an opponent's arguments and adjust one's strategy in real time can be a significant asset.
5. Resolution Analysis: I encourage debaters to engage deeply with the resolution, examining its nuances and implications. This includes considering the broader context and real-world implications of their arguments.

Things I like as a judge

• Short sentences supporting the argument with no filler words
• Limited use of adjectives and adverbs
• Analogies or metaphors to clarify or simplify the argument: entertain me with some fun.
• Fast pacing with thoughtful pauses or changes in the intonation pattern to emphasize a key point. The pause or intonation tells me this is something to which I should pay attention.
• Good eye contact; I like to feel apart of the debate'
• Body language emphasizing salient points: hand gestures, thoughtful pauses, redirection of the head or anything that tells me that what is now being said is really important
• Extended use of data points with sources and an explanation of why the points support the argument
• Love detail but connect the dots

Things I do not like

• Hyper fast pace in a monotone with no change in intonation or any clues reminding me to pay attention
• Any attempt to belittle the oppositiion.
• Non-topicality
• Hate percentages unless you tell me what the denominator is: e.g. "50% of EU countries queried said ".... is bad but "50% of the 30 EU countries queried " is good
• Repeating the same point over and over using the same language
• The "it is the end of the world as we know it" argument

Assumptions that can be made

• 35 years as a software developer so I can follow and appreciate any detailed technical argument on AI, cybersecurity or quantum computing
• I spend 4-5 months a year in the EU so I am knowledgeable about NATO and the EU and what they mean to the local people: e.g. I can point out Croatia on a map and know quite a bit about the history and culture.
• I have judged probably 40+ rounds of debate
• Like to see debaters having fun with it all

Was a high school debater (graduated 1996) but usually at the Open level, not Championship level (aside from 1-2 tournaments). Have judged occasionally since then at the Open level, including a paper ballot tournament in 2022 with the NATO resolution.

I am an attorney working in public policy and I see policy debate as a good way for students to learn about public policy and the values and arguments at stake. I prefer clash and substantive arguments, and especially like analytics - debate is about thinking about and presenting arguments, not just reading cards. I like to reward teams that think critically about the cards that are being read - it it power-tagged? Does it actually apply to the opponent's argument? Does it contradict other arguments that speaker has made?

That being said, I understand that debate is a competition with strategies. A neg team that tries to throw as much as they can against the wall must still be refuted. Affirmative cases must be topical. I am open-minded to kritiks, but prefer those that can actually apply to the aff case, not just a weapon to be used in any case. Counterplans are fine, but it must be mutually exclusive and net beneficial.

Feel free to speak fast, but not championship-level fast. I think part of debate competition is your ability to present your arguments in a persuasive manner, which typically precludes speed-reading. But I understand cards can be long.

I debated through high school and into college and had success at a regional and national level in Lincoln Douglas and hold a state championship in Extemp. I earned the NFL Double Ruby for my efforts. I did not go to high school in Kansas so the focus on Policy Debate is something I don't love for the students but I do enjoy judging and providing constructive feedback because I believe participating in Forensics really more than any of the classes I took in high school has helped me to be successful in my career. I believe not only the public speaking skills but critical problem analysis and evidence based argument skills learned in debate and speech events like extemp are invaluable life skills.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making and value framework. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be current and topical as well as strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks. Make sure you can pronounce all the words in your evidence and can articulate it clearly.

I would rather you make a clear argument at a slower pace than to deluge me with a bunch of evidence and facts at such a rapid rate that it is nearly incomprehensible.

I want clear link stories and strong rational impact calculations. I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues and definitions.

Please signal clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments. I don't look at the written speeches and make my decision solely on your ability to communicate your case and evidence verbally in the room.

Courtesy is important to me. To your partner, opponents and to the judges.