Tabroom.com

Olathe West Novice Tournament

2022 — Olathe, KS/US

Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kaitlyn *Atkins Lansing HS

Mackenzie *Leece Blue Valley West

Natalie *Riggs Lansing HS

Ray Chaffee-McClure Bishop Miege High School

Kripa Gauba Blue Valley West

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 7:03 AM CDT

bvw '25

she/her/hers

either email chain or speechdrop is good - kripagauba@gmail.com (feel free to email me after the round if you have questions!)

overall: be nice to your partner and opponents, run whatever you're most comfortable with, and have fun during the round. debate should be an educational activity and i think people get to be too competitive sometimes and forget the whole point of it. do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - it will result in an automatic loss. additionally, if you plan to run any potentially triggering or sensitive arguments you MUST give a cw/tw before the round and ensure that everyone has a chance to opt out if they aren't comfortable with it.

*btw i think rehighlighting and evidence indicts are very compelling.

if you're funny or make an avatar reference i will increase your speaks :)

***

topicality:

i don't usually run this as a debater, but i think i will mostly default to competing interpretations unless you tell me otherwise. explain why your definition is best for your standards and voters and how it impacts the round.

theory:

again, i don't usually run theory but definitely do impact calc if you choose to go for this. for lay debate i tend to lean condo bad, but if you do enough impact work i am open to changing my mind.

counterplans:

explain why the cp is mutually exclusive to the aff and make sure to reiterate the net benefits (net ben should be more than just "we don't trigger the da").

disadvantages:

i personally think generic links are not fun to watch or go against because it's not specific to the round and you don't gain much education out of it. explain the entire story of the da and weigh the impact of the da vs the aff.

kritiks:

i love watching kritiks. i think it's really important in this activity to speak about what you are most passionate about and how it applies to the real-world policies that we're discussing. if you're reading something outside of cap, militarism (maybe), imperialism, or set col, chances are it might take some explaining when you're introducing it. also make sure you truly understand what you're arguing - i think in novice debate people tend to go for the k to scare the other team but they don't understand the alt or the links itself (which is not strategic for you)!

speed:

speed is fine with me as long as it's fine with everyone in the round. however, i do think quality > quantity and i would much rather hear well thought-out arguments that are slower as opposed to speeding through something you don't understand.

but once again, prioritize whatever you want to run and think you can defend the best!

i hope you all enjoy the round!

Mick Johnson Lansing HS

Aria Kettler Hire None

Reagan Lagerstrom Shawnee Mission East High School

Ana Lahovary Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Fri March 10, 2023 at 11:36 PM CEST

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

SME '21

KU'24/5

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:) email > speech drop

About me: Currently a Sophomore at KU Honors studying Political Science and Global&International Studies with minors in Public Policy and Latin American&Carribean Studies. This is my second year coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School (graduated in '21). I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judging debates in both areas. I am also currently coaching teams who read both types of arguments.

Research interests: Russian foreign policy, Latin American Politics, and environmental policy.

Top Level: Be kind to each other and read whatever you like! I think condo and pics are generally good and theory-based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains, quirky disad/cp debates, and just overall efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage. Also just do what you want I do not have huge preferences, my job as a judge is to adapt.

Pet peeves: "3,2,1 starting NOW", talking over your partner, wasting time, not logging into wifi until round start time and then taking forever <3

Let me know how I can be helpful to you, judging is a privilege.
Evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded
ORGANIZATION
Clipping/cheating/any type of bigotry will guarantee a loss
Disclosure is good (pls do)
I will not vote on things that happen outside the round
I like quirky disads and efficient impact calc
Tech > Truth
Pretty neg biased on most theory - reject the arg not the team
Keep track of your own prep, although I will also keep track and keep teams accountable
Framework should be contextualized to the round - don't just speed through general blocks
Have fun! Debate is a super competitive space and I hope I can be helpful to you! Always happy to chat after! <3

I'll default on competing interps
TVA's = good
predictability >

DAs

good
the more specific the links the better

CPs

condo is good
pics good process meh
impacts of solvency deficits

slay
err on the side of over-explaining
engage with them!! - generic blocks with no contextualization to the debate will not win you the round especially if your fw arg boils down "k affs are bad for debate"
roj args are valuable
cite specific parts of the 1ac that link
go for whatever impact you prefer
planless affs - I'll vote for you, prove that your model of debate is the better one
How does your lit base interact with others? How does your discourse better the debate space?
only need to extend a couple of links in the 2nr

Feel free to email me if you have any questions always happy to help the best I can!

Quinn M Largent Olathe East High School

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 7:06 AM CDT

Quinn Largent pronouns She/They

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please.

Tech > Truth. unless told to evaulate arguments diffrently.

im comfortable in any type of debate. I adapt to you not other way around. Email me if anything doesnt make sense in the paradigm im horrible at typing.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while i reserve the right to make one and i am glad to awnser any questions you have.

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you.

TLDR:

there are no rules of debate just guidlines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and ill vote for it. everything is always up to debate. (dont do this just to overpower people you know you are better then speaks will be affected but wont change if u win or lose)

i want debate to be a safe space but i KNOW its not so i will vote on out of round issues as long as there is proof because i cant vote on just a he said she said scenario.

if someone i trust tells me you are an abuser or groomer etc bad thing. i will do everything in my power to vote you down. i do not care if you blow the opponent out of the water you are not winning. so if u are pos strike me.

Specifics for adapting in round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

extend your arguments this means you have a claim and warrant and what that means for the round

Call me whatever I really don’t care.

Put me on email chain or wtv ur using.

i will also auto vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. i have a 1 strike policy if its an honest mistake and the other team doesnt notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

i dont think im that expressive but if i do u probably either are sucking or killing it.

Speaks

30 - litterally perfect i have zero things i would change (i dont think ill give these out like ever)

29.5+ - go win the tourney

29+ - go break

28.5 - average

below this is just below average for the tourney

yes speaks change depending on skill of tourney (the 30 doesnt) (send me song if i like song +0.1 if i dont like it wont change the speaks i also have to have never heard the song before)

If i can tell you who won ask me questions. and post round

----- Plan AFFs -----

I have experience reading soft-left AFFs (native water rights on water), big stick AFFs (OCOs on NATO), and both (UBI on Fiscal redistribution)

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues). There is zero risk of case, especially with how bad plan texts are getting.

JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument.

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff.

If soft left you really need to a framining contention. starting the framing debate late will not make me happy.

----- K AFFs -----

have experience reading them (deluze queer aff on nato and set col/ablism on fiscal redistrubution).

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. i just dont believe the args that the affs interp will kill debate pick a more reasonable impact make it contextual to this round etc. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw. Fairness is an IL. just yelling the round is unfair means nothing to me what does it being unfair means does it means its harder for you to win if so tell me why. most convincing aff args on FW ---- Turning FW that uses the affs lit basis> Counter Interp > WM that uses the affs lit basis > WM that has an explanation on how you meet their interp > Turning FW that is just K affs are good > WM thats two words. > Dropping it.

how negs should go for FW: it should have impacts based on actions of the round exaberated by what the spefic sytle of the aff or lit basis of the aff does to debate or the round. Good TVA is sick. if identity related explain how being untopical affects that said identity. more spec FW is the more likley i might like voting on it.

ROB/ROJ: these are diffrent to me they arent the same(If the round makes them the same tho ill evaulate it as such) ROB means what my ballot should be doing when i vote. ROJ is how i weigh and view the round that is taking place

KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)

You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way.

i default to competing interps.

Affs extned your actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact.

Its your burden to prove that the aff is topical and a good idea just winning its topical doesnt mean you win the aff is a good idea.

----- CPs -----

(if sending counterplan docs dont title it CP please god i dont need that being saved in my computer)

Condo: ill vote if u win it. i went for it a lot senior year

Neg: have a net benefit.

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bads. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team

----- DAs -----

NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.

There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.

------ Ks -----

More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.

I am decently well versed in K literature. I have read biopower, capitalism, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, statecrafting, decolozation, Setller colonialism and queer theory. However, it seems that the way authors are read in debate varies from the source material, and from round-to-round, so explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.

You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA

I don’t care how generic the 1NC is as long as the block contextualizes it. If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it.

------ Hot Takes -----

i know have takes about debate and i want yall to have a vision in my mind and how i see debate.

--- Textual Comp is bad i think if it was the one standard is that we say Blank instead of Blank prolly kills debate if the word changes something about the function that makes more sense. functional competion is the better option ill vote on textual comp if won i just wont be happy about it

--- if u have a multi plan counter plan and u can kick certain parts of the counterplan that is not 1 condo that is how many diffrent combanations that you can make by kicking how many parts and not kicking some ETC.

--- how generic the 1nc doesnt matter to me as long as it gets explained in the block or CX.

LD paradigm

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks arent fun like at all to judge or to debate (ill vote on it but i wont be happy about it and u wont like ur speaks).

PFD paradigm

Hi why am i here. this shouldnt be possible. look ive never watched a pfd round or judged one or debate in one if you have me as your judge im sorry. (if there is some norms i need to know about LMK)

Vanna Legler Olathe Northwest High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:36 AM CDT

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.

Sophie Leonard Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:22 AM CDT

Hi y’all! I'm a third year debater at SME, and I have experience debating KDC and DCI.

Pronouns she/her

Add me to the email chain or reach out with questions: leonard.sophia.103@gmail.com

TL:DR

I am chill with whatever you want to read, use good clash, tell me how to vote

General Notes

First and foremost, no racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, or anything of that nature is ever acceptable and my ballot will reflect that
If you need any accommodations, let me know! Debate is your space and I want everyone to feel comfortable in it
I flow from what I can hear - be clear
Don't steal prep and do not prep before cross-ex, I will take off speaker points
A debate without good clash is lame. I want specific responses to what they’re saying not just word barf and unrelated cards. Tell my why your evidence disproves their arguments.
Please don't pack up during the 2AR, it stresses me out
I don't specifically function on a policy making paradigm, it's your job to tell me how to evaluate the round. I will listen to "debate is a game" arguments if you introduce them

AFF: whatever floats your boat, but if you’re running a k aff please make it accessible: I'm not always super familiar with the lit. Also regardless of what kind of aff you run, my biggest pet peeve is debaters not understanding their own aff, and you will lose speaks if you clearly don’t know what you're talking about.

T: t is such an under appreciated strat, use it as a time suck or a valid argument, I'll take it into account. But if you're expecting to win on T alone the 2nr should be majority T.

K: I LOVE a good K debate, but 2 things: 1) explain your args to me and 2) know what your alt is. I’m somewhat familiar with militarization, security, imperialism, and cap K’s, but I would still like some explanation. Keep in mind, if you don’t know what you’re reading I don't think you should be reading it.

FRAMEWORK IS IMPORTANT

DA’s: I like good links, but I'm not really picky

CP’s: go for it but just know i’m not great for a competition debate or condo debate

Robert Leyva St. James Academy None

Josh Little Olathe East High School

Maxwell Masilionis Blue Valley North None

Parker Massey Hire

Lilly Metzger Turner High School None

Ray Niboro, PhD Olathe East High School None

Joseph Rice Olathe South High School

Last changed on Mon December 5, 2022 at 5:32 AM CDT

About me

Hello! My name is Joseph but competitors can call me Joe. I am a 3rd-year debater from Olathe South Highschool, although I am more into forensics; got 5th in prose at state so the way you present your speech does matter to me. love the art of debate and I love the educational aspect of it.

Overall

Be nice to each other
I will be keeping track of the time
I will be flowing
I would like to be on the speech drop or have access to the USB drive if competitors are comfortable with that
if you're going to do an analytical argument tell me where you're applying it, tell me what the issue is, and please don't use this type of argument to ramble and waste time.
Unless you can somehow save it, dropped arguments mean you're going to lose on that specific piece.

Most importantly

1) don't ramble. Personally, I don't mind if you only use 7 minutes out of your 8-minute speech but make your points clear and concise. If you're doing analytical make sure you tell me as to why what you're saying is important
2) Structure of an argument is crucial, Ex) if you're going to run T I need to see your interp, violation, standards and voters.

Preferences-Aff

Tell me how many pieces of paper I will need to flow before starting your 1A.
I don't love spreading but I can keep up--- Please don't think you will be docked for spreading because you won't be.
Explain your case and tell me what you're doing, the easier you make it for me to understand the better

Preference- Neg

Again please give me a road map
Make your arguments clear
tell me where you're applying your evidence
I enjoy T but Make your arguments clear and tell me where exactly they aren't topical.
I don't mind CP's but make sure you make it clear what exactly you're doing
the more evidence you can run the more fun I think it is

When it comes down to it. If your arguments do not make sense or you don't tell me how it applies, you won't be winning on that argument.

If you have any questions as to why you lost the round or for me to elaborate on why I believe you lost, please do email me at (Gmail put at bottom). But please note anything, after the round said or done pertaining to the debate, will not be able to change by ballot 727jwr17@students.olatheschools.com.

Tyler Ashton Rosenbohm Hire

Marie Schick Olathe Northwest High School

Ryan Seiter Hire

Austin Shively Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:27 AM CDT

Last Updated: November 2023

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.

Camilla Simmons Shawnee Mission East High School

Abigail Wyrick Blue Valley West

Alexa Ymker Lansing HS

Login to Tabroom

Olathe West Novice Tournament

2022 — Olathe, KS/US

Judges Paradigm List

Judges