Kaitlyn Atkins (she/they)

add me to email chain Knatkins12@gmail.com

run what you want but explain arguments and give impact calc

speed is fine 

disclosure is good

don't be problematic.

Austin Davis (he/him)

run whatever u want.

explain ur args.

tell me why i should be voting aff/neg.

give impact calc.

dont be problematic.

thats it.

have fun ????

I am a senior debater for Lansing high school (he/him/his). I have experience in tech, open, and ld

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

Additional disclaimer: I'm a cisgender male, aroace

General

Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss

Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)

IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round. Forgoing that opportunity will put you at a disadvantage

BTW, assuming people's gender is not cool

I will default to however you tell me to vote except for exceptionally dumb arguments like "cool guy framework," "god k" or "[insert racist arg here]" If no one says otherwise, I will assume cx is binding. If no judge direction is provided, I will default to my thoughts and that will work against you most of the time. Give me judge direction

While I will default to my thoughts without instruction, I will not do any work for you. If authoritarianism is bad, but I have zero explanation for how we got from nato security to authoritarianism, I am more liable to disregard the argument. I will flow, but don't expect anything from me--consider me the technical judge

Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important

Articulation is everything. Logic and line of reasoning is more important than evidence (logic>tech>truth). You can have the most credible study that the birds work for the bourgeoisie, but if the opposition uses clear and concise logic to prove that birds aren't government spies, I will err logic. And no, me being intimate with debate knowledge and argumentation doesn't give you a pass to make lazy arguments/explanations. That doesn't mean you have to explain what an impact is or what presumption is--just that your logic needs explanation

Additionally, consistency is very important. You can win every argument, but if you drop crucial warrants in the last speech or change your advocacy, you will lose

TLDR - don't suck and don't be a terrible person and you'll win

Theory

I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo). Aff needs to provide a counter interp if you want me to weigh offense. I don't want to vote on k spec

Theory 2ar's are a lot of fun and I will listen to every second of it. However, condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar, otherwise, it's more strategic to go for case

T

T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If you don't tell me how to weigh [x] then I will weigh [x] how I want to weigh [x]. Please provide a case list--it makes the neg look really good and the ballot easier to win. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there

Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse. Failing to articulate this will lose you speaker points and will make me very sad if I ever have to vote on reasonable topicality (given that the neg drops it)

T is never an rvi

DA

Disads have 4 parts: uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If the link & internal link are compacted to 1 card, it needs to have the necessary articulation or I'll lean towards the aff. If the disad is missing or drops one of these parts, it'll be harder to win

DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS, these are easy ways to win the ballot and speaker points from me and something everyone should be doing--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc

Internal link turns are underrated and can be used to access a LOT of offense--depending on how both sides debate it

Explain everything. Don't assume I understand federalism nor how the oil market functions--that goes for both sides--brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v

CP

Competition theory is important. If a cp violates this and the aff points it out, I will err aff. The aff extending non-competitiveness isn't enough to win the ballot. The warrants and impacts need to be extended to win the argument. Dropping the warrants will turn the debate in favor of the neg

Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan. An internal net benefit needs to be mutually exclusive and distinct from the aff--that includes impact calc

There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking. However, if the cp does nothing (like nga) I will kick it without question

If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework

K

I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.

Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens

The k needs to be competitive as well. Example: running a fem k against a fem aff won't win you the k for me on any level of the k. If you're going to do that, read it as a case turn

I specialize in set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've read some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k

Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it

Rejection alts are cool and I will weigh them equally, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)

I'm chill with links of omission provided that they aren't exceptionally dumb. Example: *aff exists* neg: "aff doesn't challenge the misogynistic militarism in the middle east--that's a link" (for that, the aff needs to argue advocacies should be in the direction of the res to win me)

Answer every part and extend every argument on the k early on, it makes life easier and the ballot easier to win late-round

K Aff

I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary

I've made k affs, won with k affs, and shredded k affs

The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency--advocacy statements are good

T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate

Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize

Sorry I don't have a lot here, k affs are just so broad that I can't concisely articulate everything I think of them--oh, identity k's always make an enjoyable round and afro-asia in underrated

Case

I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important (I don't give much significance to significance because it's always determined by framing usually lopped in with impacts) and if the aff drops any of these, I will err neg

The 1ac is a speech of pure offense. Use it and cross apply cards to other arguments--quality over quantity (unless is becomes a tech round, then do whatever)

Neg should clash with every contention. I will be very sad if I have to vote aff because the neg conceded to Barry 17 which says that the aff solves cancer by abolishing the death penalty. Get something on every flow and make sure to extend warrants. I'm the type of debater who makes turns and double binds on every piece of ev, so extra speaker points to those who indict ev

If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively deficits

I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns

Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

jackson.jackson@lansinglion.org for an email chain- though I prefer SpeechDrop cause I'm not cringe. 

Don't be cringe :)

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.)

Name - Nikki Svedarsky

Pronouns: They/them - yes I am fem-presenting, doesn't matter. I will vote you down for repeatedly misgendering me or anyone else in the round. On the subject, I will probably ask for everyone's pronouns.

Email for email chains: defeateddrum@gmail.com

PLEASE use an email chain, my computer doesn't like flash drives for some reason lol.

Experience:

3 years of Varsity Debate at Lansing High School. I was a finalist at Iowa Caucus and made it to Quarters at Glenbrooks. I was a competitor for Lansing at Kansas Regionals and State Tournaments for two years , I also qualified and competed at CFL and NSDA's tournaments.

Foreword: Be good people. I will not hesitate to vote you down for any transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and whatnot, no matter who it's directed towards. I will take off speaker points and leave a comment on the ballot if a male debater is blatantly speaking over a woman or fem-presenting person in cross-ex or anywhere else; this has happened to me in-round, I know what the difference between an aggressive cross-ex and misogyny is. If it gets really bad, I'll vote you down. If I hear or see you in any way harassing or bullying your opponents before, during, or after round, you will be voted down. This includes running things like Heidegger; I will vote you down if you run a Nazi's arguments. If you think the other team/ anyone in the room has been transphobic/homophobic/ misogynistic/racist/etc, call it out, whether it's in a speech or not. Don't be afraid to stand up for yourself.

Foreword pt 2: That last bit makes me sound aggressive. I'm not. Please don't be freaked out about me judging for you, I will have a ton of comments, but that doesn't mean I think you're bad at debate, I just love giving feedback! I used to be a really nervous debater, I understand the feeling, so rest assured, I won't be mean or harsh.

On to the actual paradigm lol

I was a very tech-y debater, so if something's not covered on here, assume I have a really tech opinion. You can ask your coach or varsity teammates what that means if you don't know!

Topicality:

-I ADORE a good T debate, they're some of the best rounds to be in and judge. I'm primarily a T 2N, so I love seeing them; but be warned, that does mean I will probably have a lot to say on ballots for those debates.

-That being said, T debates should not just be "my author is better than yours." Standards like limits, ground, and brightline are where the bulk of the T debate should be.

-I default to competing interpretations. It's really hard to convince me to vote on reasonability but I can do it if it's well-done.

-Having good interp cards is not as important to me as the impact your interp has on the topic. If you make the argument that even if your source isn't great, the topic your interpretation creates is best, I will vote that way.

-That doesn't mean I have no limits as to your sources on T definitions. I won't accept blogs n such, especially if the other team makes that argument.

-TVA's are great, but you don't need them to win a T debate with me. Also Affs, your only argument cannot "they have no TVA or caselist."

-Squirrely T definitions are fine with me. Just run them well.

-You don't really need to explain to me why education and fairness are impacts, but DO explain how limits and ground shape them.

Disadvantages:

-I really dislike DA's that have no internal link chain or one that makes no sense.

-That being said, just because a DA is ridiculous doesn't mean the aff doesn't have to answer it. If you drop the DA and the neg goes for it, then tough luck.

-DA TURNS CASE. SAY IT. PLEASE.

-CASE TURNS THE DA. SAY IT. PLEASE.

-I will accept generic links, but some analytic explanation of how they link to this specific case (esp if the Aff calls you on it) is good.

-The Neg needs to EXPLAIN their links. Explain how the aff causes x bad thing, don't just reread cards or tags.

Kritiks:

-I. LOVE. K'S. I ran the Cap K all the time, I love them! That does mean I will have a ton to say on the ballot for the round if one's involved, so remember that I'm not saying you're bad, I just have a lot of ways you can improve!

-That being said, I don't know a ton of deep deep K literature. If you plan on reading Fem, Cap, SetCol, Queerness, Security, the basics, I should be alright. Anything else I'll need some explanation for.

-Links are KING. Your link needs to be well-explained in detail.

-Links of omission are NOT LINKS. "Aff doesn't overthrow Capitalism" is not a link.

-I consider Masking links without specific evidence as to why the Aff's specific policy masks movements as links of omission.

-Your links should be links to how the aff STRENGTHENS the harms of the K.

-Language and reps links are great, love em.

-Use whatever framework you want. I can most likely handle it. That being said, neg, don't drop framework the second the aff contests it. Framework is a VERY useful tool, it makes it so much easier for the K to win!

-I won't undervalue the K if you decide to kick the alt or run without an alt (unless the aff puts theory on that).

-Please know what your alt does and how it resolves your link AND how it solves BETTER than the aff.

-Affs, ALWAYS PERM THE K! I don't care if you're arguing cap good, do it.

-Affs, don't be intimidated by high-theory K's. You can defeat them, you have an entire 1AC to use to do that. Use your aff against the K!

Counterplans:

-With resolutions that had abysmal neg ground (lookin at you, CJS and Water), I hesitantly allowed 'cheaty' counterplans. However, seeing as NATO seems aight, I am going to be MUCH LESS FORGIVING of these. I'll allow pics and plan-plus cp's IF the neg explains them, why they're competitive, etc. Basically, you'll have to do a LOT of work to convince me to vote for these, I need to be convinced that you're not just reading it for the sake of reading it. Go for it if that's your style, but know that you have to put in a lot of work. Affs are very welcome to run a million theory violations on you for it, though.

-Consult cp's are absolutely cheating though. Affs, call those out. 99% of the time, I'll vote these down if the Aff calls it out for being cheaty. 

-You need a net-benefit and to be mutually-exclusive, as per usual. You need to tell me, the judge, what your net benefit is and how you're mutually exclusive.

-If you have an internal net benefit, tell me what it is and explain it.

-I hate the State CP, but again, if that's your style, go for it. Just work for it.

-I despise NGA CP, it's a worse version of States. I won't say not to run it, but I will have a REALLY tough time voting for it.

Case Debate:

This is gonna be a more aff-geared section I suppose

-Affs, USE YOUR 1AC! It's not a placeholder. If you realize you don't have 2AC blocks for something, you are very welcome to use your 1AC to answer it!

-Put case debate first in your speeches, aff. I won't take off any points, this is just advice.

-Affs, if you lose the case debate, you lose the round. It is the most important thing in the round. I won't give you leniency on this - if the 2AC doesn't extend case, I'm putting Neg on the ballot immediately.

-Your Solvency is especially important. NEVER lose that.

-I'm cool with the aff kicking an advantage if they see fit.

-Neg, make sure your arguments on case line up with your offcase. I don't wanna see a Cap K and then "but what about the economy?" on case.

-Neg, DON'T UNDERESTIMATE CASE! Like I said earlier, you win case, you win period. Always try to make the case debate engaging!

-I am open to Case 2NR's, go for em!

-Picking apart evidence by pointing out sources, or unhighlighted lines is GOLD on case, do it! If the aff's own authors disagree with them, it's game over, read their evidence to see if that can happen.

-Warrants are key on anything, but ESPECIALLY case!

-Hey Affs. Hey. You wanna know what I hate? 1ARs that make new arguments, that the 2AR proceeds to run on. As a 1A, stop doing that, I literally hate this trend in debate so much. As the 1A, your job is 1) read 1AC, 2) extend and condense 2AC args you think the 2AR could go for, and read them, and 3) answer the block. Your job is not to pull new arguments. You get what the 2AC says, nothing else (unless the neg reads something new ofc). I will pay attention to what args are extended and shadowextended - if the 2AR banks on a 1AR args, I won't count them. It's so infuriating as the 2N to lose rounds based on an argument that the 1A, not the 2A, made.

K Affs:

-I'm okay with y'all reading them, as long as you a) explain them to me, and b) run them well.

-High-theory K Affs need simplification for me, just explain what it means

-T USFG vs K Affs is always fun to watch, even though 2AC's normally prep those out, I find that T-Framework is the easiest way for the neg to win against a K Aff. And again, I'm a tech topicality judge, so I love those rounds.

-K v K debates need explanation: I find that these debates often go so high into k theoryland that I just kinda sit there not understanding a thing. Please understand and explain your K, especially if it's a specific theory or author. Other than that, K v K debates are pretty fun!

Miscellaneous Stuff:

-JUDGE. INSTRUCTION. GIVE IT TO ME. Tell me why the neg's impacts suck, tell me why the aff dropping the K means you win it, TELL ME! I WILL NOT give you conceded arguments unless you point them out.

-I'm a sucker for warrants, use them!

-In rebuttals, I don't wanna hear you repeating the tags of cards in previous speeches. Explain your ev, warrants are really helpful for this!

-I don't care if you use your phone as a timer. Just don't be on it in-round.

-I may be on my computer, IPad, or phone in a round. That doesn't mean I'm not listening; I may be contacting my coach about something. Assume I'm listening. I am always listening :)

-I'm not strict on formal wear, as long as you don't show up completely casual.

-Ask me questions before and after rounds! I love answering questions, please come ask me! If you disagree with one of my decisions, come ask me why I voted the way I did (respectfully, of course).

-If you have any issues with me, my coach is Larissa Maranell from Lansing High School, contact her.

-Barry 17

-Novices, it's okay if you don't understand what's on my paradigm or if you're confused about debate in general! Again, you can ask me questions, and I won't EVER write something that's insulting you or your performance. I strive to give y'all constructive feedback, I want y'all to like this activity!

-I'm not super strict on when the round starts, just don't be 15+ mins late and you're fine.

-Lighthearted banter and jokes between teams is a-ok with me, I love the friendliness! I hate super tense rounds lol. A round can be close and intense without being TENSE. I will put stuff on the ballot about rudeness or tension in a round, please be chill with each other. We're all nerds, let's nerd out about NATO and debate together, not scream at each other. 

-If you need bathroom break or a breather if you're super anxious, let me know and go ahead. I've needed a breather in-round due to anxiousness before, I'm cool with it.

-I consider more than 7 off a jerk move and abusive. You're giving the 2AC a minute per offcase. Don't push it. Neg, you should be able to win a round with as little as 1 off or just case - running 7 off shows me that your strategy is "I hope we send the aff into a panic and exploit it" - that makes the debate worse for everyone. 

-Have fun, do your best, and don't run Heidegger.

Good luck :D!