I did forensics in high school, but not debate. Treat me like a lay judge.

I have a bachelor's in international studies and a master's in nonprofit management, so I should be able to understand most policy ideas, but it's best to explain your arguments. Don't just read cards and assume that I will make all the mental connections for you.

I do not "flow," but I will try to take notes on the arguments I hear. Make sure that you speak clearly and slow enough for me to understand you. Please give me good reasons to vote for you.

Please be respectful to me and to each other. Please do not make new arguments in the rebuttals.

I am focused on the following key things:

1. Speaking skills (confidence, clarity, enunciation, volume, and appropriate speed).
2. Logic/reasoning (your arguments should make sense).
3. Clear impacts and reasons to vote for you.

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

I am a Senior and 4th year Debate Student at Halstead High School. I competed at the State meet last year.

What I look for in a round is eye contact, stepping away from the podium and explaining what your card is saying and how it applies to your opponents case.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

To make this short and simple I debated all 4 years in high school and now on a college team and a assistant coach so I know my way around this activity.

i'm a policy maker- so please do impact calc

not a fan of K's

• I like seeing how you convey ideas and make a point
• I do not care much for playing to the 'game' of debate; I will vote for a solid, concrete and congruent argument over one that is following rules and regulations to a tee.
• I like knowing that you understand the arguments you make. Cross-ex is an extremely valuable time and I put more weight on good cross-ex answers.

I have no preferences on arguments run as long as you can articulate your point.

I will count you off if you are rude to your teammate and/or the opposing team.

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

Stock Issues

I prefer Stock Issues (I don't love T arguments unless necessary), but if the round moves that way.

CPs are ok, but running a K will be lost on me.

Ok with speed but I prefer not to see it unless necessary

haha ????

:)

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

Hi its Katelyn I'm a 3rd Year debater it's me, so you could say I'm ready for it.

I am a Stock issues and Tabula Rasa judge. I will be flowing, but i want you to essentially write it for me TELL ME WHAT TO FLOW. not only will this make it easier for me to judge but it will also be very helpful for you and your opponents to have a good organized round.

For speed, I'm okay with speed reading just make sure your able to explain your cards afterwards to make it fully clear, and if you are going to spread make sure you can actually do it well. PLEASE SPEAK WELL, once again its just going to make it easier for everyone and I want to listen to something that you actually seem INTERESTED in.

For the overall round please explain your cards and state how they relate to the other teams arguments I WANT CLASH. also please please please have a road map for the beginning of each of your speeches once again it will just make it easier for everyone (exception for the 1AC of course unless you have framework). I really appreciate focusing on the stock issues but please don't let that be the only thing you bring up in the debate.

Rebuttals please run through the entire debate I appreciate the wording of "They said" "We said" its just once again very helpful for everyone. Just keep them neat organized, and I'm looking for impact calc here once again TELL ME WHAT TO FLOW.

I also want to mention that I won't decide who wins in the constructive speeches I will wait for every single speech to speak. So please don't give up if you feel your losing you still have time to sway me.

Also just for fun you can make any Taylor Swift references you might just make my day and get extra credit but you wont be graded on a curve.

Pet Peeves:

- Rudeness

- Saying you're going to lose the round before it even starts or even in the room for me to hear

- Talking AT me instead of TO me

- Not taking the round seriously (wasting everyone's time)

Examples:

- Say the Neg Answered all stock issues well enough that the majority of their arguments flow I will vote for the Neg.

- Neg will win on Topicality.

- CP it depends I feel it removes a lot of ground and it can be hard to win with but it is possible.

- Aff chooses framework and team that best fits that framework will win.

• I LOVE TURN ARGS and if you debate those well you will win (depends on the rest of the round of course).

TLDR:

Talk good. Stock Issues. Clean Slate.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

Asst. Debate coach 6 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 6 years. Theatre Teacher

The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.

Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:

Solvency

Topicality

Inherency

I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.

To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

I do not vote on topicality. I prefer off case arguments and DAs always win over everything on case. I will add debate etiquette into my decisions so shake hands, introduce yourselves, be cordial, and have fun.

Experienced debater. I value ability to summarize arguments in your own words. If you don't summarize a card or tell me in your own words how it links to a case/argument, then it doesn't exist. Always include a roadmap.