kfarrier@outlook.com

De Soto High School (KS). I’ve debated just about everything, so do wtv.

(+1 speaker point for every speech you give with an accent)

**Debate is supposed to be fun so PLEASE be kind to one another. Bad attitudes make me uncomfy. I won’t vote on spark/genocide good args. Obviously don’t change your case for me, but be aware that my opinions will be reflected in the comments of the ballot.

I have a good amount of experience with policy and K debate, so feel free to run what you want. I’ll do my best to understand your kritical lit, but assume I don’t know what the arg is until you explain it to me. Speed is fine. Please don’t read theory/procedurals without voters; it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Also, don’t perf con yourselves.

If there are any questions, just ask :)

Email (For Email chains): natalieriggs05@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

Policy Debate
I am mostly going to be judging based on knowledge of your resolution, speaking skills, and ability to answer arguments. I have done both debate and forensics throughout High School.

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University

email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com

they/them

I don't care if you say judge, N, or Nik... just not Niklas

\\ I have an apd which makes it difficult to hear spreading so I'm probably not the best judge if you wish to do that, im sorry. Either way, you can go slow or spread in front of me but on the chance that you do spread don't blitz through the tags so I can actually pick up what you're trying to put down - the same goes for analytics or the rebuttals - if you need me to write make it so I can hear it. I cleared people at the end of my career as a debater and I will clear you now.//

General

Be respectful towards you're opponents

I think pre-round disclosure is good

Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.

I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.

I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.

IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career

___________________________________________________

Tech/Truth

I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be

Disadvantages

I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.

Kritiks/K-Affs

I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.

T-FW/Framework

I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.

Topicality

A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough

MISC.

Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.

Same with slurs, etc.

I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.

I've done debate for 4 years and have gone to KSHSAA state for two of them in the Open division. My style is primarily traditional, persuasive debate. Think of it like a courtroom, not a chess board. I will still judge heavily based on who wins the flow, but your skill as a public speaker will also play a role in if you win my ballot.

Arguments

Pretty much any argument is okay. I will catch any T argument, but if the T doesn't actually apply/make sense on a debate theory level, I may flow the T arg to the aff. Ks are also good, but you will have to do a lot of work to explain the K to me, b/c I generally don't run Ks in round. Role of the ballot is important to me in a K debate -- what does my vote do?

if you run a counterplan, make it unconditional. i don't buy that condo is good. that's probably the only argument I wouldn't bother running with me as a judge

Theory

i prefer tech over truth until it gets to very outlandish and obviously untrue arguments

cx is binding by default -- Anything you say in cross-ex WILL apply in future speeches

do impact calc on both sides -- if you can't explain the significance of your harms/impacts i won't vote for it. i am able to interpret pretty much any set of evidence you throw at me but if you can't explain it in your own words it will be harder for me to consider.

i will automatically shoot down any problematic behavior (racism or racist rhetoric, disrespecting pronouns/gender identity, etc.)

Email- camillechaffin33@gmail.com

Pronouns- She/Her

Hello! I am a fourth-year kdc debater from Olathe Northwest.

Do what you see fit, I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Be kind and treat the round with respect and we should be good!

(If you are reading any evidence from paper, please give me a copy or let me take a picture before your speech so I can flow it. If you do not and I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not be flown.)

Hello! I am a 3rd year debater at De Soto High School.

I am OK with any type of argument you want to make. As a debater, I generally run DA/CP as well as Theories like vagueness and topicality. I will evaluate K's but make sure you have a good Framework.

I will typically vote aff if the aff is net good or neg if the plan is net bad. A good way to win me over as neg is stock issues (Solvency, Harm, Inherency, Topicality, Significance). If you are aff, prove to me that you are better than the status quo. Don't assume an argument is insignificant because you never know what I find convincing. Even if I agree with you on everything else, one small argument could cost you the round. CPs have to be functionally competitive and have to have a net benefit.

My vote does has to align with the speaker's rank, and if I can't justify giving the team that won the argument high enough speaker ranks, I will default to the better debaters (This doesn't happen often though). A good debater has good arguments and good performance. Make sure you are making it clear when you are reading a new card, and enunciate the tag. Try to signpost if possible and tell me where you want me to flow your argument.

I would like to see a thorough understanding of the topic. I like credible arguments that would work in real life. I am perfectly fine with extinction arguments (I run them too), but humanized links and impacts will almost always win on probability. I can do lay or tech-style debates, but make sure you explain the arguments you want me to vote on thoroughly. I am a fan of framing the debate with statements like "Even if we lose X you will vote for my team because of Y".

Please be kind during the debate. Being mean will dock your speaker points! Using what the other team says is convincing, but please do not straight-up lie or put their words wildly out of context. Also, power tagging if pointed out can lead me to disregard that evidence. Please include me in evidence sharing so I can evaluate the evidence if warrants are questioned in the debate. (if using email chain - AustinC.debate@gmail.com)

Please no "New in the Two". This is a hole that you will have a hard time digging yourself out of. Going along with this, don't lie in the 2AR!!! I am following the debate and this will harm you more than help.

If you have any questions about my preferences you can ask me before the round. I look forward to watching your debate!

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

I'm Rowan Gibson (he/him)

I am a senior at sme. Any post round qs--> gibson17rowan@gmail.com

I have no hard preferences regarding what kind of arguments I prefer, but please make sure that you understand what arguments you are making. Any specific questions about me or my judging preferences please ask. I default to policymaking

k: Please make sure that you know your lit

da: links do matter novices just ignore this lol

theory: anything goes I will vote on anything reasonable

He/Him 

Don't read so fast that I cannot understand you

If you are disrespectful in any way to your opponents you will most likely not win

I have a lazy eye 

I am chill

Hi, my name is Ida Harrington I am a varsity debater at Lawrence High School.

To start I do not like spreading.

If you run topicality you need to run it right and with all the needed measures, also if you claim abuse on neg you are really going to have to argue it good if you want me to vote on it.

Everything else i'm open to hearing, just have a good educational and interesting debate.

I also do not like unnecessary rudeness, I get it that you are passionate but don't be disrespectful.

SMS'23, KU'27

brooklynnjhato@gmail.com

she/her

General

My debate back round is largely critical. Debate the way you've invested. Warranted analysis, quality research, flowing, intentional cx, and ample judge instruction in the context of what your strategy in the debate is! Yes, tech over truth, truth being the tie breaker when both team are both up on the tech portion. Debate is a game, with the debaters using these statures of how to evaluate said game that I said above. An offensive defense paradigm on how/why you've justified your departure from the status squo. Love a good case debate throw down, I flow straight down just tell me what to do and we're good. Not good for a policy throw down.

_____________________________________________________

Assume I'm not reading ev during the debate. Debate is a communicative activity, leave pen time. Evidence quality is good, and can be informed by/look very different, this has value. Disclosure is necessary, I'm v sympathetic to disclosure args. Clipping/unethical card cutting is an L. CX time being used for prep will negatively impact your speaks.

Policy v K

You should probably be able to weigh the plan/it's consequences. fw is at the top of my flow. Quality line by line "our threats are real/extinction outweighs" to set up that slam dunk link turn + alt does nothing is good. If the neg has not isolated a mechanism to resolve 2nr impacts, i'll be pretty liberal to a "you went for a non UQ DA...here's the perm" 2ar.

K v policy

Link specificity is good. I would prefer a "alt solves the links" over a "our research project/fw interp solves our own offense" 2nr but do you. Most familiar with anti-blackness, cap, set col arguments. Over explaining is key, buzzwords don't win debates. Fw/links should out frame aff impacts while you tell me how your judge instruction arguments implicates my flow and vision in round. Not good for pomo. The best K debaters go for the K and still make sure to obliterate the case debate so there's no sneaky 2ars.

_____________________________________________________

Planeless Affs:

I believe affs should be in the direction/relevant to the topic. I should have a clear articulation of what the aff does, who/what it's good for, and why the ballot is necessary. Your performance should not be abandoned in the middle of the debate/you didn't make it important. Going for the impact turn is good, going for the counter interp plus "we have defense to your model, you don't" is great!

FW:

The TVA is gas and the aff answers are probably trash. The SSD/Stasis good 2nr's good. I don't evaluate fairness as "you broke nsda rules catch an L" but "if competition/fairness is true, only a universal stasis point is able to determine contestable debates that are predictable [clash args]" Why is your model good, no case debating in the 2NR is probably going to be an L.

Hi! I'm a 4th-year debater

I'll be flowing the round and will look at evidence (put me in the email chain please! emmahefty0608@gmail.com )

I'll listen to pretty much any argument as long as it is explained and extended well. I'd rather you go for arguments you feel comfortable with than change your strategy for me. So run what you like and I'll follow! Novice debate is about learning and growing, so as long as the round/arguments cultivate that environment then go for whatever you'd like :) That being said, be nice and respectful to one another. I'm all for being assertive, but if you are rude and disrespectful I will definitely vote you down.

If you ever have any questions after the round, feel free to ask or email me! Debate is about making connections and learning, so never hesitate to reach out :)

I can flow

asra june --- she/her

3rd year varsity/dci debater at shawnee mission south

add me to the chain: asrajune.debate@gmail.com

novices:

be kind above anything else. to be transparent, i am 1000x less likely to vote for you if you're mean and belittling to the other team. novice debate is about learning the activity before anything else, there is quite literally nothing at stake. being good at novice debate doesn't give you a pass to insult two random freshmen you just met. this doesn't mean don't have swag, you should be confident in your arguments, just don't be mean.

speed is fine, just be clear.

im good w/ any argument. as much as "tech>truth" means basically nothing in this context, its the way i'll evaluate the debate. remember, truth informs tech, the less true (and warranted!) an argument is the less tech you need to beat it. i'll attempt to evaluate the debate w/ as little bias as possible, using offense/defense to determine who wins as default unless given a reason to evaluate the debate otherwise. I've done both policy and k debate, and i've been debating long enough where i'll know what you're talking about. I'm more than comfortable evaluating these debates at a novice level. that being said,

arguments need warrants. i cannot emphasize this enough. even if they dropped an important argument, you still have the burden of explaining the argument w/ warrants, and impacting out why that matters for other parts of the debate. identify what you're winning, and why that means i vote for you. doing this will win you 99% of novice debates. bonus points if you can identify what the other team is winning, and why them winning that argument doesn't matter.

do line by line. most novice debates end up a card reading contest, without making arguments about why those cards respond to the other teams argument. don't do this. you should clash with the other teams arguments! flowing in a novice debate, and using your flow to answer arguments/cards the other team reads (use what you have flowed to directly respond, i.e in a "they say [argument], no, we say [argument]" format during your speech) will win you 99% of these debates in front of me. just remember to warrant out why your argument is true. the flow is how i decide debates, so using your flow to debate aligns the way you debate with how i decide debates.

orders/roadmaps should organize my flow. the order/roadmap is not "first impact calc, and then summarizing the whole debate", because i don't have seperate flows for those things. 1NC order should always be the # of off case, and then the advantages. beyond that, the order should instead be which advantages you'll be on, and which off case arguments you'll be on. i.e "the order is the IRS DA, the States CP, then advantage one, and advantage two". if you're aff, case comes first always. if you're neg, off case should come first. offense before defense.

any questions? please ask. i'm here to help you learn, so if anything here is confusing, or doesn't make sense, just ask me. do keep in mind that my feedback will be in the context of national circuit debate, because thats what i do. if you want more lay feedback, i can give it to you, but i'm likely not paying too close attention to the things lay judges care about. i know debate can be anxiety-inducing, but we're all just here to help you learn this fantastic activity. policy debate is the hardest style of debate, and is incredibly hard to learn for everyone, you all are doing great!

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

My name is Cameron Linde (He/Him) and am a 3rd year debater at Olathe South.

I want on the email chain or speechdrop

Email: os.clinde@gmail.com

I always look incredibly bored when I am judging, do not be offended by it.

If I do or don't like your argument, you can probably tell.

I don't care about speed, I can deal with spreading and such, but clarity is my tiebreaker. I will not clear you.

Tech>Truth

I really cannot define what type of judge I am, but everything in my paradigm should help you figure out what type of judge I am.

I like overviews very much. Explain the story of the round, minus the 1AC/1NC.

Debate how you want to, I will take whatever you throw at me and figure out what I like. I hate it when judges control the round to the point it skews my neg strat, so I won't do it to you.

(Note: I am not very familiar with K-Aff v. K debates and might not be a great judge for it)

I Hate Disclosure Theory. If you choose to run disclosure theory, please scream and run around the room while you do it so I am at least a little bit entertained.

Hello,

I am the Assistant Debate Coach at Leavenworth High School.

I'm a pretty relaxed judge when it comes to preferences over what you're going to run.

Give an off time road map so me and the other people in the room know the order of your speech.

I find CX one of the most important parts of the debate so try not to secede time. Ask pressing questions to poke holes and expose their arguments. As for the AFF, make sure you know the answers rather than contradict yourself and have the NEG reveal you don't know what you're talking about. Try not to ask basic questions, such as definitions, if they seem to understand their case as it wastes time.

I'm fine with spreading, just remember to share your speech with me so I am able to follow along efficiently. Speak with confidence and energy in your voice as it brings out the passion in your arguments.

Follow all the rules from the NSDA handbook and also KSHSAA Speech and Debate handbook. If your opponents are breaking the rules, address it.

Running T's and K's are good, just make sure they are effective and not just something of a last resort.

Make sure to address all arguments. A lot of times with novices I see them drop arguments and it is usually what loses them the round.

Have fun and be respectful to each other. This is an educational experience and nobody should be demoralized because of bullying during a round.

If you have any questions for me about my paradigm, just ask me before the round begins!

dustin.lopez@lvpioneers.org

hi!! i'm marie (she/her), and i'm a smn graduate! i’m in my first year at umkc studying history and biology, aiming to get my emt license in a couple years :) i did debate and forensics for four years each.

i’m an experienced judge but i’m also just like. a dude. i’m a college kid with a caffeine addiction. as long as you aren’t dropping slurs or something wild i’m gonna be nice.

out of round/decorum(?): i flow on paper, but my system is between me and god so if you see a lot of paper that makes very little sense that’s why. please signpost!! as long as you slow down for tags/signposting, go at the speed your opponents and partner are okay with- within reason. debate is an exercise in argumentation, not who does a better eminem impression. if i can’t understand your argument because you’re going too fast, i can’t flow it, then bam you don’t have a second advantage and it’s all a mess.

let each other finish sentences in cross ex- it is my biggest pet peeve!!!!!!!! your opponent is a person, please talk to them like it. any form of rudeness, especially discrimination, will be noted and weighed when judging (i will dock speaker points and potentially speak to someone about it). part of the beauty of speech and debate is its diversity. embrace it.

in round: policymaker style judging- i do my best to tabula all my rasas, but sometimes my brain slips a little.

• i’ll listen to pretty much any argument as long as you walk me through a K or Theory and convince me of it
• if you’re using a plan that links to the resolution with duct tape and a prayer i will have questions. re: convince me
• if you’re using a default font CP, explain how the benefits specifically outweigh the aff plan. yay! counter plan is better! why.
• CPs have to be well-structured and argued
• burden of proof falls to the aff! if i do not believe the aff would be the best option i will not vote for it, esp if neg is arguing squo

other than these bullets, go bonkers with it, i’ll keep up.

Varsity debater at Lawrence High, she/her

Add me to the email chain: 10204288@students.usd497.org

Generally tech>truth

I'll listen to pretty much any argument if it's explained well, however I enjoy K debates best. I appreciate good argument analysis and find judge instruction very important.

I default to evaluating framework first in K debates, it's an easy way to get my ballot and also just my fav part of the debate. I'm open to pretty much any Ks, teach me about your lit. Just know what you're running because if you don't I wont either.

Be nice and have fun. Run what you're most comfortable with. If you have any questions ask!

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.

Hello! I'm Gabe or Flora (she/they). I'm a high school senior in my third year of debate.

I am conventionally trained in rhetoric and rhetorical analysis, and I will primarily approach the round from that perspective. I'm not extremely concerned with the technicalities of policy debate—my vote will, in all likelihood, be based primarily off of what the arguments each team is making are and who comes out on top in that respect.

To that end, your rebuttals especially (but also your other speeches) should be explaining to me, as clearly as possible (though I'm not afraid of big words), what your position is, what you believe the other team's position is, and why I should vote for your position.

However, if you are rude or disrespectful to anyone else in the room, including (but not limited to) me or any other judges, the opposing team, or even your partner, you WILL lose the round and get the lowest speaker ranking I can give you. If it is a serious enough issue, I will talk to your coach. Don't be a jerk.

Additionally, if a technicality is egregious, I may base my vote off of that as well. Don't drop whole DAs or anything.

To that point, the order of factors affecting my decision is:

1. Rudeness and respect - if you are rude or disrespectful to anyone else in the room, you WILL lose the round.
2. Your arguments and if and how well they outweigh the other team's
3. Technicalities of policy debate (this may be bumped higher if there's some egregious issue, like an entire DA that's dropped)

I will essentially go through this order in my head to determine my RFD. If there are no issues with rudeness or respect, I'll move on to your arguments, and if I can't determine anything there (or if there's an egregious issue with a technicality), I'll move on to technicalities.

I will flow your round, though this is mostly for note-taking and again, my decision will almost certainly be based off of your arguments, not whether or not you dropped a single card.

I strongly prefer that you use SpeechDrop and have proper speech docs, but it won't affect my decision if you don't, or even if you just dump a re-highlighted novice packet in SpeechDrop (I've been there). It's just nice to have.

Don't run T unless the other team REALLY isn't topical. I don't like T arguments that are based off of a weird technicality of a definition.

Only run a K if you know what you're doing with it.

I think that's about it. Be kind, good luck, have fun, and always use the Oxford comma!

Add me to the email chain (or Speech Drop ????): 10200419@students.usd497.org

Hi! I'm Kaitlynn (they/she), and I am a junior debater from Free State. I have been involved in debate for a while now, and I know a lot about how it functions and this topic. With that being said, I don't want to stress you out, so treat me like a parent judge who actually knows what they're doing and how to weigh the ballot/different arguments. And if you ask for oral comments on speaking or strategy, I will give them, but everything will be on my ballot so don't worry! I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and coherent. I also don't mind cursing in the round, it adds passion, so do whatever you enjoy/will help you win:). I also WILL NOT vote for you if you are harming the way the debate is supposed to function or being bigoted in any way. Let's get started!

TL;DR - Read what you are comfortable reading, be nice to each other, and format the speech so I can flow easily. If you have any questions, just ask!

Now for the nitty-gritty:

Aff Case: I'm pretty open to whatever approach you might have or decide to take. However, I believe that the 1AC should be appropriately timed and understandable, that you shouldn't only have extinction impacts, and that you must understand what you are reading. The 1AC cross-ex should be the easiest to follow and is an excellent way to preface the debate. The only other thing I have to say here is that I think that lying in the 2AR is a fast way to count yourself out of the debate, - lay things out for me how they were, and then explain why you still win - I love a good "even-if" argument.

Neg Approach: Don't utilize time sucks, I hate them and think they are cheater-y. I think running less offense and fully understanding it while having time for the aff case is in your best interest anyway. In the end, a lot of people think that being negative means losing the ballot because they choose to approach it that way. It's actually a really good place to be in since you can read pretty much anything as long as it links and the aff might not have something to answer it with/understand the argument. Use this to your advantage and be strategic - if I have to hear both you and your partner in the negative block say the exact same thing instead of splitting it, I will go crazy. Make sure you know what you're talking about and you should be set.

Neg Specifics:

T: I am okay with T as long as you don't read it as a time suck and it's not your go-to strategy - only read it if it is necessary.

DA: If you have all four parts of the DA, you're doing great! I haven't found/seen one I haven't liked or viewed as not feasible in-round, but make sure you don't use generic links - or if you do, explain them well enough that they don't seem generic.

CP: I absolutely love certain CPs, but I can get pickier about how they work in the debate - like if you want to read the States CP, make sure you have solvency for the States specifically because municipal governments have different governmental frameworks. I do have some hated CPs, but none are super relevant this year, so you should be fine.

K: I am not a K-Debater, but I do love hearing K's! If you feel comfortable reading one as a champ novice, go for it, maybe you'll knock my socks off! I am super familiar with Capitalism, Imperialism, Security, Fem IR, and SetCol, so if you are reading those, yippee! If not, don't worry, but make sure to overexplain your literature - I love learning new things.

Theory: Theory debates are cool! I don't think you should come into the round prepared to run theory, but if it comes up, go for it! I will most likely agree with the person who brought up the theory argument in the first place, but everything is relative and if they did so with no prior "abuse" as it were, then I will weigh it differently.

Thanks for reading this far if you did, and good luck in the round!

My name is Jaxson Terreros (He/Him) and I'm a sophomore at Shawnee Mission East. This is my third year debating, and I've been to nationals and debate in the DCI division.

Here's my email: jaxterreros@gmail.com add me to the email chain and or just email me for feedback.

Here are my "rules" for debate:

K: If your argument is a K please understand the literature before you read it. I don't want to hear you run a K and then completely fall apart when asked questions about it. Explain to me how they link, why that's bad, and how the alt solves it. I'm not the most knowledgeable in K debate, but I know a decent bit about cap. PLEASE BE ABLE TO GIVE FRAMEWORK AS THE AFF AND THE NEG. IF ONE TEAM READS FW AND THE OTHER DOESN'T I WILL JUDGE UNDER THE ONLY FW IN THE ROUND WHICH WILL MOST LIKELY GO IN THEIR FAVOR.

CP: When using a CP you have to prove its net benefits (whether internal or external), and how it's mutually exclusive. If it's not mutually exclusive and the aff perms it, there is nothing stopping me from flowing it to the affirmative. I consider all CPs equally and will vote as such. If you think the neg is running an abusive CP tell me why and how it affects the debate, with proper formatting. If you can prove why the CP is harmful it will be taken into consideration when it comes time to vote. ALSO IF YOU RUN A CP, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU ANSWERED THE OPPONENT'S CASE. DO NOT USE IT AS AN EXCUSE AS TO WHY YOU DROPPED ONE OF THEIR ADVANTAGES.

DA: While I prefer case-specific DAs, general DAs are great and if you can prove it, can be a very effective strategy. If your DA does not have uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact do not be surprised when I flow it to the aff or ignore it.

Topicality and Theory: If you use Topicality or Theory I want you to use it as an actual argument, with all of it's components. Something I dislike heavily is when the neg uses T as an excuse as to why they dropped arguments/won't clash. Make sure your argument is formatted correctly. Give me standards, voters, violations, and all that jazz. Don't just go up there and say "The aff is untopical" and then move on because that is not how you run topicality.

Misc:

• I can follow at any speed as long as you are loud and enunciate your words.

• I'm not a fan of new in the two, but there are instances where I see it as a correct choice.

• As the neg you can drop your off-case as long as the other team doesn't have offense on it, but you need to address why you're dropping it and why it no longer matters.

• Tech > Truth

• Unless instructed to do differently, I will default to a policymaker. If you tell me to judge a certain way I'll listen.

• I'm fine with open or closed cross-ex.

• As a debater who has a pre-existing condition that prevents him from speaking without moving, it always annoys me when a judge takes away points/votes me down because of it. Therefore, I will not take away points just because you move when you speak.

• I'm fine with any kind of argument that adds to the debate even if it is a little unorthodox, so don't be scared to run an argument just because you think I might not like it. To put this in perspective I would vote for Spark, although it would be a very uphill battle for you.

• Do not be rude to anyone and don't mess around while the other team is speaking, as a debater some of the most invigorating times are when the other team is laughing, even if it is unrelated to the speech it affects the speaker and it will affect speaks. Wish me a happy birthday if you see this.

• I will flow and I heavily encourage you to flow as well. Flowing creates the best debates and I will know if you are not flowing.

• Please give a clash as no one wants to watch a debate without one. Arguing without clash is the equivalent of trying to lick your elbow, it's very anti-climactic.

• Debate becomes very serious very quickly, so if you want extra speaks give a couple of jokes now and then. Don't bombard me with jokes as that takes away from debate, but a joke given now and then is greatly appreciated.

• Depending on the tournament I can give results at the end of the round, but time permitting, I'll try my hardest to just give general feedback comments after every round.

I love to debate and can't wait to judge! If you have any questions that I somehow didn't answer in my paradigm then ask ahead.

Email Chain: Hjwalawender@gmail.com

Current De Soto High School Debater,

He/Him

Top Level

Send your analytics, accessibility is good :)

I don't love handshakes.

I'm 40% Policy and 60% Ks just bc of the args I read, but PLS read what you're comfortable with.

Judge directions in the 2nr/2ar are the best ways to get the ballot you think you're winning.

+1 speaks for every "Go Cats!"

Specifics (policy)

K

I will listen to and evaluate Ks (including performance affs). I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something you don't understand just because you can. Accessibility is a very important part of any Kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me. I don't particularly love K v. K debates but do what you must. If I don't buy the alt solvency I won't weigh the impacts, unless the framing is done well by the k team. I have a hard time voting for a perm on a k unless it links to no offense or is well-explained. I'll also give extra leeway for perms with ev explaining the method of how the perm works with the k. I also generally think that if a K gets links to case then it can be enough to reject the arg even if alt solvency isn't 100% guaranteed just depends on the f/w of k.

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 80/20 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses claiming otherwise.

CPs and DAs

I think CPs are super fun and I think you have a lot of decent options on this topic but please be competitive. I like PICs but, I also think they can be really abusive. If the aff can prove lack of competition or abuse in round I will vote on it but, I generally default to PICs good. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist. DAs should be unique: generics are good but ev quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like framing, disclosure, etc. I need to have voters. If a teams wins on the theory level but does not provide adequate voting reasons why this is important or does not provide reason as to why theory evaluation should predicate policy, I will ignore the theory debate in favor of policy impacts. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim.

CX

CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit; it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Voting

As said earlier I will hear out almost any argument but it must be explained and backed well enough for me to vote on it. Speech is important and I don't want to see a debate where it's two teams looking down at their computers the whole time. Eye contact is good but don't do it too much. Any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other offenses I deem worthy will have the team disqualified. Debate is for all people and everyone should be welcomed.

Pf

This is pf not policy pls be accessible

"It's a great day to be a wildcat"- Mr. Hamilton

Hi! I'm Josie (she/her), this is my second year of debate and I went to NSDA nats '22 and '23 in World Schools debate.

I'm definitely flexible-but here are some of my preferences:

-Aff case: Be as clear as possible with your plan and the logistics of your plan. It's hard to judge if I don't understand what I'm judging on to the fullest extent. (also, this should go without saying, but I can totally tell if you don't understand what you're running..know about what you're running before going to the tournament pleaseeee)

-DAs: case-specific DAs are more fun imo but use a general DA if you want (as long as you can link effectively)

-T: run it if you want but I think they're kinda boring tbh-I probably won't be super on board unless the aff interp is like super abusive

-CPs: I literally love cps so much they're so fun 10/10 recommend

-Ks: Im not super familiar with Ks, but I think they can work really well from what I've seen (but only if you know what you're doing with them).

-Theory: Again, I'm not super familiar, I don't run into/run theory often, but I think it's fine in certain contexts (if the other team was clearly abusive)

-I wanna be able to hear you; I'm not more impressed by spreading than I am by having clear, comprehendible arguments.

-I couldn't care less if you choose to do open cx-just clarify before the round

-Your job during rebuttals is to summarize your arguments, your opponent's arguments, and why I should prefer your argument. Your clarity with this can make or break a round.

-If you're rude to the other team in any way you will automatically lose the round. (not flexible on this one)