Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

I did not participate in debate in HS.

This is my first year as an assistant coach in debate.

I have been a teacher for 9 years in the state of Kansas and have taught nearly every class/prep/whatever of Social Studies between 7th and 12th grade.

My favorite debates feature analysis over cards. I'd rather hear the debater's analysis than rote cards.

I vote based on stock issues. I tend to disfavor kritiks and any arguments on topicality, but am willing to be open-minded if the argument is sound.

I am able to follow speed fairly well. No need to slow it down on my account.

I have high school, collegiate, coaching, and judging experience in policy, LD and BP debate. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well-vouched for, with specific links and clear strings of logic. I value the educational value of debate, so I ask that you use your evidence responsibly and communicate clearly and effectively. These factors, along with the content of the round and the overall persuasiveness of your arguments, will determine my decision on your ballot.

Communication is the most important thing to me. If that is compromised by your argument presentation, you should rethink your strategy. Otherwise, all arguments are free game to me, given their appropriateness and sound rhetoric!

I think of myself as an ordinary voter of general intelligence. I won't apply any speciality knowledge I might have in the round itself, but I will think through things. If you can make that thinking easier on me with good link chains and strong warrants and impacts, you will likely win the round.

Thank you and good luck to all!

Overall presentation and preparedness is important. Be clear, concise and confident. Passion about topic should be evident in your presentation. Having a few well developed arguments is more valuable than having large quantity and is more persuasive.

State clearly your argument and articulate well. Be sure that supporting evidence coincides with information you present from cards you read. Any rebuttal should be respectful and address the issue directly. All arguments should be supported by strong evidence. Explain clearly why evidence was chosen and how it relates to topics

Hi! This is my 2nd year judging debate and while I've judged multiple debates in these 2 years, I am definitely a lay judge. Take the time to emphasize your key arguments with me and remember that you are more educated on the topic than I am, so it's important that I can follow along. Not looking for you to dumb it down necessarily, but take that into consideration if you've got a particularly complicated case. Also, I'm looking for quality over quantity. Be respectful of each other but I like a gutsy, interesting debate. So take some risks and have fun!

Experience

First, introductions. In round, you can just call me Aaron. I’m a graduate of Lansing High School and focused on traditional debate for four years. I was the type of debater to max out the number of tournaments I can go to. I know how debate works and will flow your speeches. I mainly want to see a good debate with thought out strategy and knowledgeable debaters.

Stock issues

- I would not call myself a stock issue judge. If the negative wins on solvency or significance and loses all their offcase, for example, I’ll still vote aff because those positions usually do not generate offense. I am more focused on clash and offense vs defense in a round.

Disadvantages

- Good stuff. Make sure to defend all parts of your disad, and don’t drop impact calc.

K’s, K affs, and Spec

- Not a fan of K’s, but I understand them. Make sure to clearly explain framework. In my opinion, framework is not a priori. If you win framework but lose the rest of the K, then I will vote affirmative. I do like spec though and tended to go for it semi-often in my own rounds.

CP’s and PIC’s

- I like counterplans, just make sure that the CP is mutually exclusive and has a net benefit. I have no reason to vote for a counterplan that solves as well as the aff and nothing else. PICs are fine as long as you convince me that they’re mutually exclusive to the affirmative.

Topicality

- I will listen to T and even like a good T debate, but I will warn the negative that I have a fairly high likelihood of deferring to aff on reasonability. However, if the affirmative is grossly untopical then the neg will probably be able to pick up an easy win.

Cross-x

- Cross-x is binding and teams should try their best to abide by what they say in cross-x. Please don’t get aggressive or interrupt too much; it only makes you look bad.

Tech/Truth

- I tend to be more truth over tech as a traditional debater. That translates mainly into how I weigh impact calc. I tend to prefer probability and timeframe, but that isn’t to say that I wouldn’t vote on a magnitude impact, especially if impact calc was dropped. Just make sure to cover your bases with respect to strategy and be clear on your analytics and you should be fine.

Hey friends!

My name is Shelton Byrnes and I work for Topeka Public Schools as a Secretary. On top of that, I work a second full time job at Topeka Civic Theatre as a Server. I debated my Freshman and Senior Year of High School for Shawnee Heights, and I competed at state and did pretty well for a JV kid! But TBH friends, I am a forensicater WAY before I would call myself a debater. I love emotional stuff and personal anecdotes in your speeches, tell me why YOU care, not just the authors!

I would say I am mild to moderate in terms of my knowledge of the cases this year. Obviously I don't have my doctorate in Humanitarianism with a minor in aqua biology, but I am a pretty smart cookie!

I promised myself I would say this as a judge, so here it goes. Speak at whatever speed you are comfortable at, BUT don't expect me to catch every work for those of you that spread, I work at a preschool, so I am pretty good at deciphering meaning with little context, but don't let my brain come up with something you didn't say! That can work against you!

Stay away from any problematic args, as that will likely get you IMMEDIATELY the 3-4. Be kind, and you'll get farther.

I'm a sucker for a good States CP, and a T arg is totally valuable, even if it is complete and utter nonsense, make them prove to me that they are topical!

TL;DR Emotions Emotions Emotions, run anything you want that is unproblematic, speak at whatever speed you want, dumb it down if you feel it is necessary.

If you have ANY questions about the round, reach out at robert.shelton.byrnes.2002@gmail.com

Assistant Coach - Maize South High School

2 years policy debate, plus 5+ years judging policy

4 years forensics having competed in every event except LD & PFD and specializing in Oration and Informative

I try to judge in a very blank slate style though I do have some arguments or argumentative guidelines I prefer over others. For my affirmative teams I like to see cohesive arguments and a logical plan presented. However the affirmative wishes to refute negative arguments is entirely up to them as long as they follow a clear and logical path.

I expect much the same from the negative team. You may decide which avenue to take in trying to take down the affirmative plan as I put equal weight behind all potential courses of attack.

I do not like speed to be used as a weapon. I understand in debate the pace of speaking will be picked up to get all the info in, but if I ever feel that a debater is attempting to speak quickly just so that the opposing team will not hear an argument and then not be able to respond to it, I will judge that critically and penalize you for that.

I appreciate when debaters "get off the cards". I want to see debaters analyze their cards and break down their arguments and try to connect with me on a human level rather than just rattle off facts and figures for the duration of their speech.

I'm not a stock issues judge. While stocks are important to frame a debate, I do not and will not judge solely on them. Do not rely on believing you "won" inherency/solvency/etc. to lead you to a round win. Only a clear and sound argument overall will win you a round in my eyes.

I am open to Topicality arguments but I want them to be specific. Don't just run T cause you feel like it and don't argue that your definition of "the" is better than someone else's. If you run T it needs to be specific and show that the affirmative is actually harming the competitiveness of the round.

If you run DAs make sure they have specific links. I'm not a big fan of generic DAs so make sure you find some way to link to the aff directly.

For Kritiks I generally am not a fan of them but if you can present one that ties to the specific round AND you run it well then I might rule in your favor, just be aware that it might be a risky play. Not to dissuade you but just to inform you.

TL;DR - I want more on-case arguments that have real world examples. I'm fine if you go off case, it just needs to be presented well and somehow swing around to providing clash in the round.

I worked in radio for 8 years before transitioning to education so I value good communication skills in a round and being able to connect with people as I have spent a chunk of my life honing that skill. Your evidence is important but your ability to properly convey it to me is just as important. I want to see you communicate your intentions of your arguments and where you stand on the issues in the round.

As a reminder this is an educational activity and we are all people just trying to get better and learn things. I understand debate in its very nature is confrontational, but remember that your opponents are fellow human beings just like you and should be treated with respect. Try to avoid being argumentative in rounds and keep it loose.

At the end of the day just have fun!

Debated @ SMW from 2016-2020 (China (2016/2017, Education 2017/2018, Immigration 2018/2019, and Arms Sales 2019/2020)

Debated @ JCCC 2nd semester of my senior year 2020 (Space)

Debated at KU (alliances fall 2020)

Coached at SMW 2020-2022

Pronouns they/them

add me to the email chain: catheydebate@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~LD DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

I may be experienced at policy but I have no idea what's going on, treat me like a parent judge please, im begging you. I don't even know round structure.

~~~~~~~~POLICY DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE 12-2-22: I took a step back from the debate world this school year, so this is the first tournament of the season for me, yay!! I have really no idea about the topic. If you're good at what you do, it shouldn't matter. Make sure to explain everything out, impact it, do the stuff, basically write my ballot for me. Feel free to read whatever, get out there and do your thing. Since I have been out my spreading awareness has just gotten worse, so you can, just maybe not top speed for me? Slow down, and clearly say tags & analytics. I don't care how fast your cards are as long as I can get the speech doc and what I just mentioned. I will be watching for clipping, but I trust y'all.

*New rule for zoom debate, send me analytics when spreading because I have a really hard time processing stuff when I’m listening to things on the internet, captions are honestly my best friend, when you otherwise can't send analytics slow down. Plus you never know about audio quality on my end so don't assume that my scratchy speakers can put through your spreaded analytics. You don't have to send them to everyone if you don't want to, but please send them privately to me, because then you know I flowed them for sure and can get justifiably mad at me when I say you didn't say something that's right infront of my face. It's much easier for me to focus if we were in person so don't worry about speed.

Don't say anything abusive. You'll get 0 speaks. So no racism, no homophobic/transphobic things, no ableism, no sexism, nothing. I will give your team the automatic loss, with 0 speaks, and talk to your coach. So please don't. It should be a given. On pronouns, if you misgender someone, if you just say I'm sorry and then move on and don't do it again, I won't feel inclined to drop your speaks. But if you say more, yeah I will, just apologize and move on. Doing anything else in my mind is toxic, because if you say anything other than sorry you're justifying it and that's not cool.

I've been trying to figure out what I want my paradigm to say for a while now, but honestly I think less is more at this point.

You can run anything. Except, I really don't want to vote on T. Please don't read more than 1 or 2 arguments.

Framework I will vote on, but I don't want to vote on just framework, give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for this K aff other than it scares you and you have nothing else ready.

Run all the abusive CP's you want, I love abusive counterplans, as long as they solve something.

DA's I love em, keep em coming, but make them link.

K's make sure you explain to me the nuances of your K, otherwise go at it. I know some stuff from running it but please understand I am a business major and don't have the energy to read every single philosopher to exist. UPDATE 1/2/21: I am no longer a business major, I've changed to something different, but the premises still stands

For theory stuff if you read condo I won't vote on it unless the neg is running more than 5-6 things, but it also really depends on what they are. Like a DA, a CP, 2 T's, and a K yeah no, probably won't get me to vote on condo because you can easily respond to all of it if you manage your time right. More than 1 K plus a bunch of other things will get me to. I don't want to see a round have more than 1 K ever so please don't do that, and what i mean by more than 1 K is dont read 3 5 card K's that totally contradict each other. If they pair well I don't care(like a language K + something else), but if their philosophies are totally off base from each other yeah no.

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

Experience: I was a varsity policy debater in high school and judge occasionally. I have seen several rounds on this topic and I do have a lot of background knowledge.

Speed: I can handle speed but prefer that instead of getting as much info out as possible, you strategically choose good arguments and evidence. I feel a slower pace (not necessarily slow enough to be conversational but slower than spreading) allows for more demonstration of communication and speaking skills.

Number of arguments: Do as many as you want, but I don't want to see debaters throwing out a bunch of arguments just to see what sticks and what arguments the other team drops. I don't feel this choice demonstrates critical thinking or strategic skill. I'd rather see debaters strategically choose strong arguments that support their position and stick with them.

Types of arguments: I will vote on topicality but your standards and voters better justify spending time on the issue.

Counterplans are acceptable.

Theory and kritiks can all be acceptable depending on how they are run and what theories or kritiks you choose to run*. If/when you run a K you need to make the links clear, articulate the alt, and tell me why you need the ballot to achieve the alt. Why the ballot is critical to the alt is very important to me. However, I am generally opposed to K affs. Run these at your own risk.

*I will not vote on disclosure theory.

General Note: I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism other discrimination or intolerance. Debate is an activity that teaches real-world skills and each round is a chance to learn not to perpetuate harmful ideas.

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

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

I competed in HS during the 90's.

I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years

I seldom think speed is a good idea

I am largely policy maker, at least in background

I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives

I want clash over just about anything else

I prefer argumentation over cards

it is possible I have become a grumpy old man

I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching

I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition

I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as tabula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.

oddly I DO like a discussion of out of round impacts, role of the ballot, and real world impact of the activity/arguments

have never looked at cards-never will

In my final "get off my lawn" rant, I hate the time wasted between speeches dealing with or waiting on tech. I seriously don't care if it hasn't loaded before the speech begins. See---grumpy

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

I would appreciate a clearly debated round. Don't gaslight each other, and don't gaslight me. I will take your general assertions as truth, and counter evidence needs to be obvious.

Treat me like a (hopefully) smart lay judge who is willing to bend if the actual speaking is good. K's are fine with me as long as there is not an obscene amount of legwork required to make your point worth making.

Lastly, I believe cordiality is important in round. Aggressiveness can work in making points, but not to the point of being snide or rude. Keep professional within the debate.

acedwards00@ksu.edu

I default Policy Maker, but I’ll vote on whatever you tell me.

I'm also not the biggest fan of existential/nuke war/extinction impacts, largely because I don't believe they reflect reality. Focusing on more realistic impacts (war and economic decline for example) is how to win me over.

Also, if I can't tell exactly what your plan is mandating/doing by looking at your plan text and ONLY your plan text and the other team runs vagueness, the odds are not in your favor. That said, I don't really care about financial specification

Topicality: Only if the plan is obviously untopical under your definition and if it doesn't involve the word "substantial"

Generic DAs: Acceptable

Generic CPs: Acceptable, but if the CP is just "do the plan but add another different entity" it is wholly unacceptable

Speed Preference: No preference, but please speak clearly no matter what

Kritiks: Not Preferred, but acceptable with clear links

I did debate for one year in college, and competitive speech on the whole for 9 straight years. I did debate all throughout High School, state qualifying every year and nationally qualifying three times. In college, I was the district champion in impromptu speaking for District 3, and qualified for nationals every year I have done that as well. My final year of college forensics, I was a national semifinalist at AFA nationals in extemporaneous speech.

I am an assistant debate coach. I value the arguments and speaking skills equally. I am ok with faster deliveries but you should still be understandable. I would rather have you speak slowly and clearly than stumbling and tripping over your words trying to go quickly. I also judge on politeness. If you are kind and polite to me and your teammates, you get a few bonus points. It is not advantageous for you to be harsh or unkind in a debate round.

As a debate coach, I want to see a well structured case. You should make it easy to follow, understand and flow. This means I want to see you sign posting and your cards in your shared evidence should be labeled by Advantages, DAs, Solv, etc.

I judge based off stock issues. You should be explaining to me in your rebuttals why your team wins on Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency and Significance. It is your job to break down the other team's arguments and doing impact calculus. You should also be spending the rebuttals convincing me why your team should win and asking me for your vote.

DAs/CPs - I am ok with DAs and CPs as long as they have clear and strong links. I would rather you spend your time as a Neg team presenting DAs or CPs rather than Ts or Ks.

Topicality - Topicality arguments in my opinion are usually weak and do not hold much ground. They do not play a large role in gaining my vote so I would stay away from them when possible.

Kritiks - I am not a fan of K Affs. I believe that it defeats the purpose of the debate and is unfair to the opposing team as it is not topical to the resolution. Do not introduce Ks unless they are well thought out and there are clear links. I think your time can be better used bringing up arguments already tied in the debate.

I have judged dozens of rounds so I would not consider myself a total novice, however I have no formal training in debate / forensics. In my opinion the most important part of debating is to win the argument. I am unimpressed with teams that speed read to me so fast that I can hardly keep up with what they are even saying. I do appreciate a cogent argument. I am even more impressed with teams who are nimble, with the ability to think on the fly, and counter the arguments their opponents put forward. The ability to assess, process, think critically, and then put forward an intelligent position in short order is the most impressive aspect to debate in my opinion. I do not need to agree with your position for you to win. If you can make an intelligent argument, and counter your opponents' points, I can recognize the art of debate and separate my personal beliefs from the judgement of who "wins".

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

I'm an assistant coach and have judged for four years. I have been an English teacher for 15 years, so I understand the art of rhetoric and can follow evidence and counter-arguments.

Don't waste time repeating yourself or your arguments. Ensure you understand your case. Ensure I understand your case.

I can follow spreading, but prefer quality over quantity. I will listen carefully, but I expect you to speak as clearly as you are able. I also lean toward evidence over analytics, but I like both. If a plan is weak, I won't care about the disadvantages. I would rather you prove that a plan would not work than emphasize the disadvantages. Additionally, don't waste too much time discussing the validity of cards, but focus on the topic.

I only judge what you bring up in the round. I may look at your speeches in speech drop, or I may focus on flowing.

I like policy; I prefer applicable arguments -- those could be put into actual practice for the benefit of real people.

Additionally, I don't like the argument that the debate round is not educational. All debate is educational, and whatever goes in the debate round goes.

You don't need to engage with me -- I listen to what you say to each other and usually focus on writing my notes over your speech. Some judges want you to make the case directly to them, but this doesn't matter to me.

I want sportsmanship. Show respect while being competitive. I know you will cut each other off sometimes, but I will dock you in speaker points if you are disrespectful to your teammate or opponents.

Lastly, while I will almost certainly think you are awesome, I'm not going to shake your hand due to having an immunocompromised son. Thank you!

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

Policy Debate Wichita East 1993-1997

Policy Debate Wichita State 1997-2000

Head Coach Wichita Heights 2002-2005

Head Coach Andover High School 2005-Present

I have judged many debate rounds over the years and honestly I am open to just about any style. I hesitate to call myself tabula rosa as I lean more towards policy maker, but have voted for K's on many occasions. If you are going to run a K, just make sure that you have a good explanation of how it works in the context of the debate. I do think that topicality is important and will absolutely vote on it if it's won in the debate. I am fine with generic positions, DA, CP, or K.

Speed - I don't see has many fast rounds as I used to, but I am generally fine with rapid delivery as long as you are clear. I would like to be on the email chain or in the evidence drop.

Things to avoid in the debate - One major pet peeve of mine is teams who overly use "cut the card here." I understand doing this a time or two during a speech, but if you are doing this for every card, this is a problem. I believe that this one of the key reasons clipping is such a problem.

If your opponent takes time to tell you their pronouns, I expect you to use them.

Feel free to ask many any specific questions that you have. Good luck!

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

Nikola Helixon

Assistant Coach @ BVSW

Chain: helixon.niko@gmail.com

"Using cross-ex as prep" is not a thing that exists. I will not let you do that.

I don't know as much about the economy as you do.

I am very close to just saying everyone needs to debate slow in front of me. Clarity and efficiency matter. I will not clear you. There are some debaters who can be both very fast and clear. You are probably not that debater.

• I won't vote for arguments about a persons worth, or some drama between high school students. I don't think high school students should be coached to attack the quality of another person for the sake of winning a debate round and find it odd that an adult would insert themselves into the lives of high school kids in that way.
• If you only read from your computers, don't look at your flows, have the debate scripted from the first speech, you will get bad speaks. We spend a lot of time getting to tournaments, prepping, sacrificing time doing other things we enjoy. If debate is just a block reading contest, we could save a lot more time not going to tournaments and just submitting speech documents.

Important

Probably fine for everything. Most used to Policy AFF v. K and K AFF v. FW debates.

• I dislike overuse of buzzwords, monologues, jargon. I don't do anything related to debate over the summer. I don't really do research on the topic during the year either.
• Overviews should not exist. Put your arguments on the flow.

I don't like to read evidence when making a decision. I will if I feel I need to. I don't want a card doc.

- Be clear: Slow down and be clear, debate is a communication and persuasion activity.

• Ending rebuttals: should frame my decision. Have a view of the overall round and tell me why you win.

Prep

- I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of time between when prep ends and when you start speaking. There's very little reasons why this should take more than a minute, especially since you just have to click a button to send the document out.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

T vs. Planless AFFs

-Affirmatives should probably be related to the topic.

-Fairness is an intrinsic good only if debate is also good. If debate is good, usually nothing matters more than fairness. This is why I think affs that are about debate are the most strategic - otherwise it's hard to win that you get to weigh your impacts in front of me since very few non-debate critical affirmatives operate on the same plane as fairness.

Fairness still makes most sense to me as an impact to T-USFG. Most negative clash explanations end up either 1. trying to solve affirmative offense which, oftentimes, ends up being a very defensive strategy or 2. trying to solve some topic education offense which is often an uphill battle against impact turns. I think the most strategic way to go for clash is explaining it as good in and of itself, but usually that explanation ends up resembling fairness. I'm open to hearing most all impacts though.

• Subject formation is persuasive to me if it's about the activity as a whole. I don't think affs need to win subject formation to solve (I typically just vote aff if the aff is a good idea) but I do think they need to win subject formation to access a good amount of their offense. This makes switch side very persuasive to me.
• Thresholds are weird for me, I find myself being pretty hard on affirmative teams to win these debates but at the same time the amount of 2NRs I've heard that are almost purely defense makes me want to rip my hair out. If you explain your argument the best you'll win.

Ks on the Negative

• Links should be to something the AFF does. I don't think you need an alternative.

• Alternatives based in a pure intellectual nature probably just lose to the perm in a world where the affirmative wins framework. Intellectual/epistemology based alternatives should probably lead to something tangible that the perm can't solve.

Counterplans

• Competition - I'm a bit out of my depth when I hear teams trying to defend counterplans that only need to be textually competitive, so it's probably not a good idea to read these in front of me. If you do want to read them I need a great deal more explanation than you'd think, probably.

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGleRitgQc)

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Previous debate experience: High school debate, Kansas, 5A

Judge experience: I have Judged multiple years since I graduated in 2016. Local, state and national qualifiers. I have Judged for this year's topic in one tournament so far this season.

D/A: I do not like politics disadvantages, if there is no other disadvantages to run then that's fine but I will not be considering them as strongly compared to other arguments. All other generic disads are fine.

T: I am fine with any topicality arguments but will frown on any use of them as filler arguments that are kicked later.

C/P: I am okay with counterplans just make sure you carry a disad with it.

K: Generally I am okay with these arguments but I personally did not have much experience running these. I ask that you explain why you are running a Kritik and why it's impacts link.

Spread: I am fine with speed but ask that when a new source is brought up that it is said clear and concisely. Please also try to speak as clearly while reading the card, we cut cards for a reason.

I will be flowing the round.

Please have fun and be respectful.

Jaret Jarmer-
Put me in the email chain: jaret.jarmer00@gmail.com or speech drop either is okay.

Please share using a word doc. it's not the end of the world if it is a PDF, but I really prefer a word doc

TLDR: I try to be as Tab as possible. Everything is up for debate. Run what you want. I'm cool with 9 off and case or 1 off K. If it's a K aff, just tell me what my ballot does, and win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

Debate Experience:

Largest Debate Influence: Evan Manning

Policy: I debated for three years at Eisenhower High School 2016-2019 China, Education, and Immigration. Primarily in DCI and TOC-circuit tournaments. I ran pretty much everything from reading the K of politics as a 2A to Sparking myself. Name it, I have probably done it, so do what you want. Spark and Empire were my favorites, and I ran them both on the Aff and Neg. If you have a question about how I feel about an argument, ask me about it before the round.

PF: I debated PF for two years. I read pretty much everything I ran in policy. I got away with Debate is Bad and Spark more times than I should have. Just go for what you want. If it's not considered traditional, then win it's better than your opponent's vision of debate, and you will probably get what you want.

My opinions

Speed is fine

1. Tech over Truth

2. I will never refuse to listen to an argument or vote you down because of my personal opinions about an argument.

3. K’s- Are fine; that being said, please explain what my ballot does when I vote for the K. I find it very hard to vote for a K when I don’t know what my ballot means. I ran Hardt and Negri Empire, so past that, don't expect me to know your lit at all. Also, I think it is especially important to be clear on tags here - big words, difficult concepts. (K affs with or without a plan text are fine). The stronger the link, the better..... Links of omissions aren't the best, I think more teams should make the argument that speeches are time-limited.

4. Theory- I like theory debates. That being said, zooming through generic pre-written blocks without adapting them to how they apply to this specific round probably isn't the best strat. I feel like most theory debates don't have much direct clash. For me to vote on this, let me know what my ballot does. Win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

5. DA – I think Specific links are better than generic links. This is very true when it comes to the PTX disad of the year. Impact turning disads is a fun strat. I don't see that much anymore.

4. CP’s- I love all the cheating counterplans you can think of.... Consult, Delay, etc... but an aff can absolutely win this is cheating.

5. T- If you’re going to go for T, go for T. Impacts of violating topicality can be very persuasive. T isn't an RVI, but please don't cold concede this and make me vote on it.

6. Impact Turns- Impact Turns are the best; please impact turn. I'd love to judge a good spark debate. Sparking was my pastime.

K Aff Stuff

Top Level Things

K Affs with or without a plan text are cool. I ran a K aff with a plan text that was a meta kritik. Just because something is my personal opinion on how an argument should function doesn’t mean I’m going to default to it. Tell me how to vote and what the world of debate looks like post my ballot. I think debate is a game, but the cool thing about this game is we get to debate what the rules are. The only literature I’m familiar with is Hardt and Negri, and Judith Butler. I ran Empire on the Neg most of the time and ran Butler on the Aff and the Neg. Outside of that, assume I have never heard of your literature before. So, zooming through the thesis of your K probably isn’t going to help you.

K Aff V Framework.

I prefer a K aff to have some connection with the topic. That being said, I’ll still vote for one that doesn’t. I just feel like the Neg is going to much easier time winning framework and abuse claims. I think teams should spend some time on real-world impacts to violating topicality. In my personal opinion, I don’t feel like reading framework is equal to genocide or violent; in fact, I think more teams should leverage real-world impacts to violating limits or topicality in general against the impacts of the Aff.

K V K

I’m down with K v K debate. They probably should clash. It was my default when I was debating a K aff. In the end, I need to know what my ballot does. I don’t feel like I have a preference on a response to a K Aff. Do what you're more comfortable with.

Speaker Points

(If I'm Judging IE events and the scale is out of 25, I will use this scale and subtract 5)

Copy and Paste from Austin's Paradigm

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments effectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

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

T

• 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

Ks

• 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: mjmcmahon3739@gmail.com

Assistant coach for Blue Valley North

Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North, currently in 4th year at Kansas

One thing that may be instructive for having me as a judge is my speaker points are equally likely to reflect how much I enjoyed judging a debate as the skill of each debater. Debate is a fun activity. The most fun debates are ones where debaters are engaged, impassioned, and noticeably enjoying what they’re doing. I love seeing debaters smile and give speeches like they have a personal investment in what they’re saying. I know debate is hard and tiring and takes a lot of work and detracts from school. But you’re here for a reason, and if I can infer that reason during the debate, I’ll reward you for it and everyone will have a better time!

Here are some opinions I have about arguments and the state of debate. None of these opinions are fixed obviously, I just think it’s important you all know.

Conditionality is getting a bit out of hand these days… the 1NC with a 20 plank advantage counterplan and uniqueness counterplans atop every DA will frustrate even the most poised 2A. I am probably a better judge for condo bad than others. I think debate might actually be better if the 2AC could punish the NEG for a sloppy 1NC. It’d be interesting to see how dispositionality would actually play out

I don’t think 2NC counterplans out of 2AC straight turns are legitimate if they disagree with a core premise of the 1NC. For example, if the 1NC says “X bill rides the plan, that’s bad”, and the 2AC impact turns the bill, I can be easily persuaded the 2NC doesn’t get to counterplan “pass X bill”, because they already said that bill was bad and the 2AC made a strategic choice to develop offense there instead of elsewhere

Small(er) 1NC’s that disagree with the core premises of the AFF will always be better than giant 1NC’s whose only goal is make the 2A suffer and extend what’s undercovered. I get it, I know why it’s strategic, but well-developed offense intrinsic to the AFF is so much more fun to judge and educational for the debaters. If you have the goods to spend an entire 1NR link turning an advantage, that would be infinitely better than a process counterplan that needs 4 minutes of AT: Perm do the counterplan just to appear competitive

Evidence quality and highlighting matters so much. I cannot stand evidence with highlighting being scattered and not forming coherent sentences. I swear some cards these days don’t make a comprehensible argument, and I will not fill in the holes in your highlighting for you

Probably better for reasonability than most. I find the argument “precise evidence shapes the predictability of a limited topic” persuasive.

K’s can be incredibly potent, and I love them when deployed correctly, but too often I judge debates where the K is just one big solvency push. “Reform bad because it makes the state look good” and “AFF fails because nebulous theory of power true, vote NEG” are too defensive. Get specific, tell me why the AFF is bad, not imperfect

Not good at all for any genre of K that says death is good or we should accept unnecessary suffering

The less jargon you need to explain your K’s theory the better for me personally. I need to understand your argument before I can decide if you won it

Really really love impact turns

I think there are only a handful of debaters and coaches in the country who actually understand counterplan competition. I’m in my 8th year and Bricker is still coddling me through this aspect of debate. It’s very fun and interesting, but confusing, so if you can debate that theory well, I will have the utmost respect for you

Regarding framework, fairness can be an impact. It can also be an internal link to a host of other impacts. I think non-topical AFFs should choose whether they want to impact turn framework or read counterinterps to play some defense. I've found attempting both rarely helps the AFF.

Some of the things I wrote above might lead some to conclude I only ever vote AFF lol (you can tell I’m a 2A), that’s false. You can make the block only an impossibly limiting T arg, psychoanalysis, and con con with an internal net benefit and I’ll vote on any and all of them if you debate them well. The opinions above are only there to say it might not be my favorite debate.

Hi!

I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR)

Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU.

Yes, add me to the email chain, my email is gracemcmanus22@gmail.com

I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round.

Framework- Usually debates inevitably come down to competing models of debate. You need to be able to explain why your model of debate is best. I will vote for the framework that has the best impacts(obviously but just making sure I put it out there) I have voted for education before (with fairness as an IL) but I am comfortable voting for literally anything.

K- I am super comfortable with K's, just make sure you are able to explain the alt well. Explain the role of the ballot and how the alt is able to function when I vote for a K, you know... the usual K things. I won't do the work for you when it comes to these types of arguments.

Theory- I love theory, but make sure you execute it properly. Not much else to say here, but if you have questions you can definitely ask me before the round begins.

T- I have voted for T in the past. I expect their to be competing interps when T is presented. I'm also cool if you read no interp and just impact turn T. Do whatever you want I will flow.

I have a lot of opinions on a lot of different arguments, but I will always defer to what is said in the round. I will vote for anything, my paradigm is only a suggestion of what I like to vote for. Just make the best arguments in the round and you will win the debate.

Above all be nice to one another. That doesn't mean you can't be assertive just don't be mean, it's pretty simple. If you have any questions, just email me.

I am willing to evaluate any arguments that you make, as long as you explain and execute it well. There is no need to change your arguments to something you think I like or will vote on, just give me the best debate you can, using your best arguments, and you will be fine.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 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 (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) 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 if told to do so. 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.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. 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

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link 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.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. 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 well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. 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. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. 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).

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.

If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

samir.i.rahaman@gmail.com

Northside '21 (debated)

KU '25 (debated freshman year)

1. I probably care more about clarity than others. I won't flow off the speech doc and I will try to avoid reading cards after the debate. If I can't understand the words you are saying when you are reading a card I will give that card minimal weight even if the tag is comprehensible.
2. I am bad for Ks and K affs.

Debated in High School in the 90s

Coach for 15 years

Default policy maker - probability typically trumps my impact calculus

Communication skills are important

Warranting evidence is important

Establishing links to arguments (Either Adv or DA) is important

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Speak guuuuuud.

But seriously, I'm a forensics coach first, so I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at a REASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!

Also... CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! And EXPLAIN your cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">

Likewise, Give. Me. Roadmaps. I want to know WHERE you're going with the arguments, and SIGNPOST when you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me know WHERE your argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.

In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. And definitely don't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, you don't need to wait until rebuttals to start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!

Finally, I want the debate round to be FUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.

Tell some jokes.
Drop some geeky, pop culture references.
Make me laugh.
Make me clap.
Give me a reason to look forward to judging another round.

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

I come from a 3A high school where I debated for three years and participated in forensics for four.

K's - I don't understand them. Please either spoon feed them to me or don't run them at all.

Generic DA's - Link it and convince me of the link.

Impacts - PLEASE no extinction impacts. Make it realistic so it's harder to right them off.

Topicality - Don't be stupid with it.

Speed - As long as everyone (including yourself) can understand what you are saying we are fine while reading cards. Please slow down during analysis.

USE ANALYSIS. The evidence is important so read it but then tell me why it's important.

AFF - GOOD POLICY IS KEY.

NEG - PROVE WHY POLICY DOESN'T WORK or STATUS QUO BETTER.

I am a Tabula Rosa with a default in Policy.

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

I think debate should be an opportunity to put research skills to the test. I highly value good evidence spin and think in many instances teams who tell me what their evidence says wind up better off than teams who just read what the evidence says.

I think the only ideological predisposition that affects me the most is my neg lean on a lot of theory questions. Condo is probably good and certainly doesn't outweigh T but I've recently been finding myself persuaded by condo bad a lot more. Edit: I have oddly enough recently become far more convinced that it's good for the aff to extend and go for condo despite making the switch to 2N. That isn't to say I am easy to win on the argument but rather that I can be persuaded either way. For it to be viable, however, aff teams need to start contextual analysis and interp debating in the 1AR and slow down so I can flow everything.

Evidence quality is something I've noticed decline at a shocking level. No author qualifications, shady websites, poor highlighting to the extent that there's no warrant highlighted, etc. Even though I noted above appreciation for evidence spin, that spin should incorporate indicts to bad evidence from the other team. If they read a card that's tagged, "BBB Passes." and the only words highlighted are "BBB" and "Passes" I feel no reason to consider that card in my decision.

Don't be needlessly mean to your opponents. Being blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic etc. will certainly tank your speaks and probably lead to an L. Making fun of bad evidence does not require attacking the character of who you're debating.

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

Teams should adapt---------------------------X----Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

Counterplans aren't fair--------------------X-----------Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes----------------------X---------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability--------------X-----------------Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------------X-------Not a good argument

Case Debate

Impact turns can be exceptionally fun but often times are full of terrible literature. Teams should point that out.

I think teams are scared to go for turns vs affs that aren't flat out impact turns and I think both evidence wise and strategically it's a good idea to put hefty link turn arguments on case.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does.

Teams often do impact comparison exclusively at the terminal impact level without incorporation of vital solvency deficits implications to that calculus.

DA

There's a lot of focus on reading an unnecessary number of cards in the block on certain arguments. If 1NRs cut UQ cards in half in favor of link cards I think the debate certainly winds up further in your favor.

If you are gonna read 2 minutes of UQ then my smallest request is to make the tags funnier. I'll give extra speaks if you make the worst part of the debate a bit sillier.

Politics is one of my favorite arguments but I think there comes a time when people should recognize that a DA is beyond repair. Sometimes truth can ethos wise outweigh tech in these debates that makes it feel displeasing to vote on a PTX DA.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

The Rider DA can be a lot of fun and holds an interesting implication for affs but I think it's almost always very flawed at an internal link level.

CP

If an aff is really good enough you should be able to answer every counterplan just by winning it's different from the 1AC. Not being able to do that is not the fault of the negative.

Non condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument, not the team so if you list them as a reason to do so in 2AC cross you should have a reason why that's true before I hold the neg to answering it with anything else than "reject the arg, not the team."

Clever PICs can be really fun debates but word PICs can be a little more lifeless than others and less fun to debate and evaluate.

Judge kick is usually my default. It makes since to me that the neg always defends the squo even if they introduce other advocacies because their role is simply to prove that whatever change the aff makes is the wrong one.

K

A lot of my first hand K knowledge is limited to Cap, set col, or Heidegger but I feel comfortable in a decent bit of these debates. I think the more abstract and post modern the K leans the more I find myself feeling confused and I'd hope for more explanation.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

A lot of framework interpretations that don't have an end point that allow the aff to weigh its stuff vs the K seem counterproductive to me. Framework should function not just to the advantage of the K's impact and solvency calculus but should also have relatively clear parameters for what an aff must do to weigh itself. I think usually framework interpretations are better the more simplistic and common they are (the aff should be an object of research that must justify its scholarship is typically a solid interp) Otherwise it ends up too self serving.

The alt should be able to be explained to tangibly do something. Alts that just "refuse" or "reject" something seem counterintuitive to political progress in a lot of ways because I don't think they can ever have an endpoint that solves the Ks impacts.

K Affs

I've only been on the negative in these debates but I don't think I've wound up as opposed to critical affirmatives as my coaches or even partner. There's no doubt that affirmatives that challenge the resolution are important to debate as a whole but since I've spent most of time thinking about neg strategies I think a lot of my views can be filtered through weighing traditional neg offense.

I think affirmatives are always best whenever they take advantage of the 1AC to leverage a counter model of debate that can access some of the negs offense. It's hard to convince me in a competitive setting that procedural fairness is outright bad whenever the affirmative is required to engage in some procedurally fair part of the activity before the 1NC even occurs, that said I think impact turns should be paired with reasons why the affirmatives model can avoid said offense.

Affirmatives really need a clearly defined theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes.

Neg teams in these debates should be more direct and willing to read a lot of off case positions. For one it can be effective against teams who are only ready to answer 2 or 3 off, but also I think it helps get a gage on what the aff actually does and helps point out contradictions in what they advocate for.

Topicality/Procedurals

T is one of the more fun arguments in debate because I think it's good to limit out bad or shady affirmatives in real time.

I feel like Extra and Effects T affs are more common and that's dumb. Aff teams usually just say "because there's extra stuff from the plan you get more DA links." That's ridiculous and neg teams should put a stop to it.

Impact debate on T needs to occur alongside a counter explanation of what the neg interp does to both solve it and create better debate as a whole. It feels like a lot of T debates suffer from serious disconnect.

Most procedural arguments are lost on me as legitimate reasons to vote against an aff team. Procedurals that require unorthodox things of the affirmative usually seem silly to me.

Sneaking in ASPEC is quite ridiculous and I will decrease speaks of any neg team who hides the analytic or sends out everything in the 1NC except for it. If it's short enough that the aff team doesn't notice it I'll guess that's because it's not warranted enough to justify voting negative and the 1AR will get new answers.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one procedural type argument that's of immediate value:

Disclosure is probably one of the most important things about modern debate. I come from a school where my partner and I were the only team consistently debating with a small coaching staff. Despite that, I think I'm opposed to the view that disclosing is even close to bad for smaller programs. I agree a lot with Chris Roberds here, "I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive." Teams should disclose what stuff they read and open source docs on the wiki. If you tell me you open sourced the round I'll bump speaks. All of this comes with some caveats like the neg should ask for disclosure before the round before they make the argument in the 1NC, which requires that both teams come to the room (or zoom) shortly after pairings are released. I think if the aff team flat refuses to disclose anything (on the wiki or preround after being asked) than I can easily be convinced on the theory argument but the the neg did not attempt to get disclosure or if there are a reasonable set of interrupting circumstances for the aff pre round then maybe I will give leeway. Your best bet is to have some sort of physical evidence (ie a screenshot of an email which was not answered or if you ask for disclosure while I am in the room and the aff says no) and contextualize the violation.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Arguments I am a very good judge for (this is a continuously growing list):
The security K
Vagueness
Stock issues
"Permutation do both" against process CPs

Arguments I am a poor judge for:
Disclosure Theory
Speed Bad
Counterplans which compete off of certainty or immediacy
Trolling

About me

KU '25. I debate in college. Currently coach the Quarry Lane School. Previously coached Lawrence Free State ('22-23) and the Ascent Academy.

jspiersdebate@gmail.com

Most Important

I think I am equally good for policy and critical debates - which is reflected in judging history. I vote on the words that are on my flow. The implication of tech>truth is that I can't write out arguments no matter how much I disagree with them, so much to my dismay I will be judging hidden aspec 'til the end of time. I judge based on the relative risk of positions unless given an alternative impact frame.

Bad for "they said something else in another debate and should lose," and for "my opponent is bad for interpersonal reasons." Don't care about falsifiability, I think the first contravenes the nature of debate (switching sides inev) and the second is just awkward to be in (wins and losses aren't good for conflict mediation).

I don't read docs after the 1NC until a card doc is sent, I don't fill in gaps if they're your fault and not mine, and I really like numbering. I flow on computer, I type rather fast, and I used to line everything up, but realized the sisyphean nature of this task and it doesn't really change my decision.

Clarity is a substantive constraint. If I do not understand the functional utility of the arguments you're making while I am flowing (or at least based off of the words I have on my flow) it is unlikely that my decision from reading the cards is going to dramatically shift that functional understanding. Ex. if you are extending like a turns case argument on one part of a DA as a uniqueness argument for a part of a case turn and you don't say that I'm likely just going to be confused and not going to psychoanalyze your decision and instead try to simplify as much as possible.

Burden of proof precedes burden of rejoinder- making an incomplete argument justifies blowing it off/ new answers when the argument is complete (this also applies to recontextualizations that dramatically shift understanding, revealing unclear tricks, etc...) If you're worried that forcing your opponents to play minesweeper with bad args is going to lose to truthy args, make the better and complete one earlier. If "late-breaking debates favor aff" is true (which it is), wouldn't it be best to vertically proliferate ASAP?

Reasonability will take an above average amount of explanation to make sense as a method to evaluate debates. It is far more likely that you beat T or any other theory argument by assuming that competing interps is true rather than going for reasonability. I think this way because the justification for reasonability is often question begging for me. How can I determine that an interp is "sufficient" or "good enough" if not comparative to another interp? I think you are better served to make the argument "their interp is arbitrary/unpredictable" as an offensive reason to prefer instead of an impact framing argument. In general I think of these args as limits/ground multipliers in the scope of fairness objections - i.e. a "predictable" interp multiplies limits by a really low number (think .1) while an unpredictable interp multiples by a really high number (think >20) - this is how a "predictably unlimited" interp beats a limited and unpredictable interp because even if it kinda sucks it is more "fair" insofar as one can more closely assume that interp is true and prepare on that basis

Everything is or is not an impact - fairness, clash, fun, etc...

In a theory debate with no impact calculus:
---Neg on PICs
---Aff on Process (for perms)
---Predictability > everything else for T

You may think, paradigm is short - agreed, but find basically everything else has little utility in prefs. I like everyone else like debate that is more specific and deep, find debates over the topic enjoyable, and want to vote for the team who is nicer to their opponents.

I have occasionally judged policy debate and run a middle school debate team (modified LD and policy). I have a fair amount of background knowledge on this topic.

I can handle some speed, however, I believe in the educational nature of debate and I don't feel that spreading provides any real-world benefit. I would prefer a slower, more substantive round. I also want to see you use strategy to pick the BEST arguments, not attempt to make the MOST arguments.

Substantive issues and high-quality communication are extremely important to me. Speaking skills will be part of my judging model.

I am willing to evaluate most types of arguments that could be made in a round. However, if you are explaining high-level philosophical material, you need to communicate the content clearly and effectively.

Note: I want to see respectful debate rounds and do not tolerate sexism, homophobia, racism, ableism, or any type of hate speech. This includes disrespect in impacts and towards those outside of our room.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

Employment: 7 years as an attorney and 7 years as an assistant debate and forensics judge.

Experience: 2 years high school debate, 1 semester college debate at KU, over 10 years of judging including judging policy at EKNSDA and KCKNCFL and judging PFD at NSDA and NCFL, including PFD finals at NCFL 2019.

Arg Prefs:

Topicality is rarely an acceptable argument, unless in extreme cases. When it is run, it should be at the top of the flow and is an a priori issue for me.

Generic disads are always acceptable. Just don't expect them to be super important to my flow if the impacts are outrageous or the link story is weak. Regardless, if they are on the flow, aff must respond.

Topical counterplans are almost never acceptable to me, but if you can make an argument why it would be necessary in this round, tell me.

Open to any K, just make sure you know the material. Misrepresentations of the philosophy presented in the cards, or cards that don't actually make or support the argument made by the neg team will be discounted.

Big impacts are disfavored but not terminal to an arg. They simply don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Give me voters! Tell me why to vote on any argument, weigh it against other arguments in the round, and do the work for me. Leave as little as possible up to my discretion/analysis so that you remain in as much control of the round as possible.

While I will not do a team's work for them on arguments, if a team misrepresents what a card actually says, the persuasive power of that argument is heavily discounted. The other team still needs to challenge the argument, but the misrepresented argument will not weigh heavily in the round.

Style Prefs:

Speed is fine, provided there is competent analysis and your enunciation is clear. Speed does not work for me if your enunciation/volume is poor, or if you are just burning through cards without considering what the cards are actually saying/doing any analysis.

On-case in the two is fine with me, though I would like a preview of it in the 1N.

Give me more detailed roadmaps than "everything on the flow."

I'm an Assistant Coach at Hutchinson High School. I debated for four years in the KDC and DCI divisions.

In general, I prefer a more open style (heavy use of on-case arguments, DA's, and CP's), however, I want debaters to have the freedom to express themselves and do what they want. DO WHAT MAKES YOU SUCCESSFUL!! I will have an open mind when I submit my ballot. A couple of notes for those who want it:

Speed: Speed in the constructives is whatever. I'd prefer a slower debate, but I can keep up. I would prefer rebuttals be slightly slower, but it's up to you. I'll do my best to not miss anything.

Kritiks: I was never a huge K debater in high school, so I'm not up-to-date on the literature (although I have a baseline understanding of the most popular arguments). Make sure that if you read a K, actually explain its relevance in the round. I will vote on it, but you need to do more work for me than you would on judges who are more familiar.

You will win my ballot by giving me some impact stuff in the 2nd rebuttals and telling me why you have won. I'll vote on whatever framework is presented in round, but I default policymaker/impact calc. It would be great if a team did the math for me instead of having to do it myself. What will the world of the aff be vs the world of the neg? Analysis like this will win you the round most of the time.

PLEASE signpost and provide clash. I'll do my best to write a solid RFD on every ballot so y'all understand why I voted the way I did, even if you might not agree with it :)

Email for email chains if that's how you want to share evidence: royalsandchiefs333@gmail.com

Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE

239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.

Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.

Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.

General: My preference first and foremost is for a clear logical argument that can easily be followed and clearly addresses all stock issues. Don't make me work really hard to follow your case. I am not a huge fan of spreading. I understand wanting to fit in as many arguments as possible, but, sometimes speed is not your friend. Plus, if you go for speed, the odds are greater I am going to miss an argument. Clash is great and I enjoy seeing a great competitive debate.

I am open to almost all arguments providing that they make sense and they are well organized and can be easily followed. So I expect off-time roadmaps and signposts. Remember, I'm not an expert on your case you are, and I expect to be able to follow along, even if I don't have the evidence in front of me. I'm going to drop arguments on my flow if you don't make sure that I can follow your arguments. The mistake students make that drives me the most nuts is not flowing and dropping arguments.

On-case: I don't consider myself a stock issues judge, even though I often vote on stock issues. Don't ignore or completely gloss over them because you don't think they are as important as your off-case arguments.

Off-case: When on the neg I want to see good solid disadvantages and counterplans that are constructed well (make sure your uniqueness and links where appropriate are obvious). I am not a fan of kritiks (especially if they are not exceptionally strong), and I really dislike kaffs. If you are going to run a kritik make sure it's in the 1NC and make sure you can tie it back to the actual resolution. Running a generic K often feels to me that you are grasping at straws. I hate abuse arguments unless it's blinding clear that the other team is being abusive. At its core I want the resolution argued.

Evidence Sharing: Your evidence needs to be in speechdrop or emailed at the end of your prep time. Don't take extra time at the podium putting the evidence in speech drop. I consider that to be a theft of prep time and I see it happen all the time (I provide more grace to novices as they are learning). Prep time theft is my number one pet peeve. Evidence sharing - I prefer speech drop. If you using an email chain use emma.webb@staff.usd305.com.

Professional Behavior: I'm also a stickler about professional behavior from all debaters. Every team has varying levels of experience and skill, but they all deserve to be treated respectfully.

I am the parent of a high school debate student, and this is my fourth year judging.

• No Spreading - I want to understand what you are saying as you are speaking.
• Present the best case and have the best evidence and you will win, even if I don't personally agree with your argument.
• If you are invoking a specific law or policy, please read the pertinent portion of it if possible rather than assuming your opponents or I know exactly what you are talking about.
• Only run topicality if you can prove the other team is untopical, not to waste time. (Don't run it on the definition of "substantial" or "majority.")
• Cite your sources.
• Never be unkind or rude to your opponent.

I am in my 7th year of debate. Third year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: February 16^th, 2024, Pre-Spartan Green & Gold.

General:

Do what you want. I genuinely believe in debate as a space for debaters to make any argument they choose. This means I don’t care if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate. Over the course of my short 3 year tenure of judging, I have judged over 170 debates, voting for basically every argument imaginable.

I do care about teams making complete arguments. A complete argument is one that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. Arguments that are not explained with warrants or impacted out in the context of their opponent’s arguments are incomplete and therefore have less sway on my decision than those that are complete. For example, if the AFF has said “climate change causes extinction---ocean rise, temperature change, etc. make Earth uninhabitable by collapsing agriculture and destroying society”, the response of “no impact to climate change---it’s fake” is insufficient because a.) it does not contain a warrant (why is it fake?) and b.) it does not contain an impact (why does it matter if it is fake?).

The above applies equally to “answered” and “dropped” arguments. You cannot just say “conceded” or “they’ve dropped x” 20 times and expect me to vote on it. You still need to give a reason if it is true and implicate the concession in the debate. An argument being dropped does not guarantee it is “true”.

I have spent almost the entirety of my debate career reading a plan and going for DAs and CPs. This means while I will still vote for any argument, my experience and knowledge are both better in policy debates and the way I think about the K is attempting to beat it, not win rounds on it.

I will likely have a lot to say in the decision. I usually write a lot down, and tend to have opinions on almost everything said in the debate. I will likely talk for a while, either until I run out of things to say or am cut off by a question. Assuming the questions remain civil, I will answer any and all questions debaters, coaches, or teammates have about the round. If you start yelling at or berating me, I will likely pack up and leave.

I will do my best to give complete and thorough feedback for each speech. Too many times I've asked in an RFD "how can I improve the 1NR/2AR?" and received the response "I think the 1NR/2AR was really good. Don't have anything I'd add", while later seeing I got a 28.9. This is extremely frustrating as a debater, and I will do my best to avoid doing that by spending prep time after your speech coming up with feedback.

The bottom line for everything in this paradigm is that I care a lot about debate. I spend a large portion of my free time debating, judging, coaching, running tournaments, writing files, cutting cards, streaming debates on YouTube, etc. It has become an almost integral part of the last third of my life, and I know that is true of many of the debaters I will have the honor of judging. As such, I will try my absolute hardest in each and every debate I judge to render the correct decision and give thorough feedback.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

---Competing interpretations is the only method of evaluation that makes sense to me. I do not understand how I would approach evaluating T debates if not from an offense-defense point of view. I also think that “reasonability” is meaningless and ultimately devolves into competing interpretations---instead of “we are reasonable because the NEG had the ability to debate”, explain it in the context of the risk of their impacts versus yours.

---I am getting really sick of AFFs reading vague plans that barely modify resolution language so they can go for “plan text in a vacuum”. Will I vote on it, and do I do it in my debates? Sure. But I think it’s a bad argument. Instead of touting your AFF that definitely violates as “topical” because you said a word or phrase, defend a model of debate that includes your AFF.

---In-round abuse is not necessary (it’s a debate of models), but explanation of what debates look like under your model is (case lists, examples of ground, etc.).

---My favorite T speeches I've ever watched are when the AFF has read a counter-interpretation they do not meet. This happens more often than teams realize, but is often ignored because the argument was either a cheap shot or the blanket assumption that the AFF meets the interpretation. If you think the AFF doesn't meet their own interpretation, go for it.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

---Fairness can be an impact, but it also cannot. Whether it is depends equally on the NEG’s explanation and the AFF’s responses. I have found fairness to be a more persuasive impact than clash but have voted and gone for both.

---I find myself voting NEG when teams correctly use small, technical arguments to drastically reduce the risk of AFF offense (“T is a procedural, so you cannot weigh case vs. T”, “debate does not change subjectivity”, “the ballot cannot solve their offense alone, but it can solve ours”). I find myself voting AFF when teams either go for their counter-interpretation resolves NEG offense OR impact turn everything the NEG has said.

---I find it very hard to vote NEG when teams are re-reading blocks without engaging in the AFF’s arguments, or not explaining their offense in terms of what the NEG has said (going for a predictability internal link instead of a limits internal link when the counter-interpretation is “limited” but unpredictable, not comparing your impact to the language of the AFF’s impact, etc.). I find it hard to vote AFF when they are not debating technically or exploiting dropped arguments (the NEG dropping something like “small schools” or “the ballot can only solve our offense” but not going for it because your pre-written blocks don’t include an extension).

---I am a sucker for PIKs versus planless affirmatives, and usually find it far more strategic than going for topicality. When I was a 2N, many of my 2NRs versus planless affirmatives were PIKs out of random things (the phrase "mapping of time"; the phrase "lock them up"; etc.).

Disadvantages:

---Politics scenarios have become laughable. Writing a politics DA does not mean just finding a card that says a bill exists and a card that it would do good things, then throwing your generic PC or bipartisanship link and climate change impact card and making a DA. A politics scenario makes sense when it is something being actively debated or campaigned for, and when it is something the president is actually spending PC on. I love a good politics DA, but those tend to be few and far between anymore.

---I care a lot about turns case arguments---both “impact turns case” and “link turns case”. I equally care a lot about “case turns the DA” arguments. I find these to be extremely helpful in both breaking down close debates but also helping to reduce opponent’s offense because it tends to always be unanswered.

Counterplans:

---I hate watching a process CP debate---not because I think the argument is inherently bad (though it is), but because both teams are usually horrendous in doing the relevant line by line for competition.

---AFF-specific PICs are some of my favorite arguments. Topic generic PICs (like country PICs on NATO) are the opposite. I love it when counterplans contest a core assumption of the AFF, not when they negate something the AFF had no choice but to defend.

---Conditionality is good, and core to NEG strategy. I will still vote on theory, but it’s an uphill battle. I am NEG leaning on almost all theory, except for performative contradictions or international fiat, because I tend to find those violations to be extremely egregious.

---Most other theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. But, if the counterplan is the 2NR and you are clearly ahead on a given theory argument, go for it.

Kritiks:

---I find it much easier to vote NEG when the 2NR is FW, not the alternative. I personally think AFFs should get to weigh the plan but have found so many debaters to be horrendous at defending why that is the case. I find that FW 2NRs make the most sense when they attempt to reduce AFF offense to as close to zero as possible.

---However, I find it extremely difficult for the NEG to win FW or reps-based arguments when they have read contradictory arguments at different points in the debate, and I do not think that condo or NEG flex justifies that.

---If the 2NR is the alternative, I find it far easier to vote NEG when it is actively compared to and explained in terms of the AFF (does it solve the AFF? Make it impossible to solve?).

---I find it much easier to vote AFF when teams do impact calculus on FW or go for DAs to the alternative. It is insufficient to just say “fairness matters” or “education comes from talking about the plan”, it also needs to be explained in terms of why the NEG’s interpretation forecloses it and why those things matter more than the NEG’s offense. The same is true for the alternative---most AFF teams let the NEG get away with murder in terms of alternative explanation (especially when going for the alt solves the AFF), so reasons why the alternative does not make sense or cannot solve the links / AFF would be super helpful.

---AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

---The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

---I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go a long way.

---You should go for the impact turn. Debaters are horrible at answering it, and I love a good, and fun, impact turn debate.

Uhhhh errr uhmmm

I forgor ¯\_(ツ)_/¯