This is my first year judging debate. It is also my first year experiencing anything in debate as well. It is important to that debaters speak in a clear, concise manner. This does not necessarily mean slowly. It does, however, mean that you need to be articulate so that I can understand everything that you are arguing. It is possible to be articulate and speedy!

It is important to me that all debaters stay on topic and be specific. Generic disadvantages are not needed.

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!

Please add me to the email list or give me the code to speech drop. Feel free to contact me after the round if you have additional questions.

Email: ben.beckwith5@gmail.com

qualifications: I'm on my 4th year of high school policy debate now. I've been to JDI for 3 years now. I've state qualified for 3 years now as well.

Tech over Truth. Personally I do not care how good you are when it comes to speaking. I will vote off what I believe solves best. I try my best to only base it off of arguments in the round to limit judge intervention. The only thing your speaking ability affects is your speaks.

Speed: I can handle almost any speed as long as you are clear and distinguish taglines. I will still probably evaluate the arguments through your evidence if I can not understand you, unless the opposing team convinces me not too.

Evidence Sharing: Please share your case before the round as well as past 2NRs. Also send out your evidence before your speech in one document. You should be able to win the round with your opponents having everything before you speak.

Ethos: I’m much more lenient than most judges when it comes to Ethos. I understand that debate is a performance activity so as long as you are not straight up abusive I do not care if you have attitude. After the round please be respectful and friendly to your opponents and drop the performance. I will interfere if something goes too far. I WILL NOT TOLERATE RACISM, TRANSPHOBIA, HOMOPHOBIA, etc. If you choose to say or do something that falls into these categories you will lose the round and I may contact your coaches and the tournament organizer.

CX: I flow CX so if something is said I will probably have a record of it. Please refer back to CX in your speeches. Both sides should answer and ask questions reasonably.

I consider myself Tabula Rasa but I definitely do have some bias towards Ks, Ts, and ! Turns.

Affirmatives: I’m happy with both K AFFs and Policy AFFs. You should know your specifications or the specifics of your K AFFs advocacy. If the other team runs a spec argument and can prove that they are missing something on ground then I am subject to vote off of it.

On Case: I will still vote off of on case but personally I think on case should be a supplement to your off case. I like impact turns and solvency defense the best.

DA: I’m good with DA’s as long as you have all parts.

CP: My only requirement is that Counter-plans should not be apart of the resolution. You are free to run any wacky counter-plan you want but you should be able to prove why it’s not abusive.

K: I love K debates and K v K debates. I am a K debater myself so this is where I am most knowledgeable. I also believe that you can drop the alt and run it as a DA.

Theory: I like theory arguments a lot. I think topicality, framework, and other theory arguments can be very convincing. I will compare standards which will require some judge intervention. This can be limited by impact debating.

Rebuttals: Make rebuttals as simple as possible for me to vote on. Give me specific reasons why I should vote for you. You should be telling me exactly what I should be writing on my RFD.

Record:

Policy: 1-0

Kritikal: 0-0

Tabula Rosa on the content of arguments but I do favor the persuasion aspect so I like performance over the content.

As a judge I focus on communicative skills more than the resolution issues.

Skill emphasis is what I judge the most on.

As far as your speed, as long as you can be understood and are fluent speed isn't an issue.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable.

Topicality is rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I prefer specific real world arguments.

Hannah Cleveland (She/Her)

I debate at Olathe North and am currently a junior.

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

Please don't be rude/disrespectful, it will probably result in a loss of round/loss of speaker points.

I am extremely sensitive to noise, specifically to excessively loud speaking or speaking loudly while someone else is talking. I would greatly appreciate it if you could be mindful of this to ensure I can effectively adjudicate the round.

Please refrain from requesting to shake my hand; my answer is no thank you. We can all agree to show mutual respect without exchanging approximately 1.24 x 10^8 CFU of bacteria.

Please don’t stare directly at me for the entirety of your speech.

With these accommodations in mind, I am open and eager to listen to any argument that does not harm anyone involved in the round.

Tech>>>>>>>Truth

I will evaluate the round using the framework given to me. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Everyone should be timing every speech, every cross-ex, and all prep time used.

Disclosure is good and fun :)

I debated at Blue Valley High School all four years and now I'm an assistant coach.

I'm open to any kind of argument. Debate how you want to debate, and if you want me to evaluate the round in a certain way make sure to tell me why.

Kritiks: If you run a K that's not generic don't expect me to know everything and make sure to spend time explaining the link and alt.

Topicality: Your standards and voters should justify spending time here.

Speed: Speed is fine. I can flow fast. I'll clear if I can't understand you.

Email: julia.denny@ku.edu

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!

Hello, i'm a 3rd year debater who is fairly new to judging. I would prefer a medium pace because I find that the easiest to flow and keep up with all of your points and evidence :) Some things in a debate round I really enjoy are strong impact calculus and i'm not the biggest fan of counter plans (you can run them if you want but i'll do my best to keep up). I really enjoy a strong rebuttal, however I do not like meanness while doing your rebuttal. I love a articulate, but still kind rebuttal. Please make sure to speak loud and be confident while speaking :)

Add me to the Email chain: 124070@usd230.org

I debated in Kansas for 4 years primarily in KDC with some DCI.

Overview

Tech ≥ Truth (ifykyk)

Clarity>Speed

Debate is a game, so run whatever you want as long as you understand it and explain it well. I'll vote for almost everything (besides isms).

I will say that I think I am best to judge policy v policy, policy v k and k v t/fw. I think that k v k would be cool to judge,but I have very limited experience with it.

Judging Preferences

I default to policymaker if not given framework.

T-I love a good T debate. I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability you should explain what it looks like. You will never win T as an RVI.

DA-My favorite argument of all time. They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way. Linear DAs are cool.

CP-I think that every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type of net-benefit. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans.

K-Love 'em. I've ran abolition,governmentality/biopower,imperialism,orientalism, and sett col(my fav). Besides that, I'm familiar with cap,afropess,fem,queer,and academy. I'm not the best for psychoanalysis or pomo. If you are running a k that I'm unfamiliar with that's fine, just over-explain it. I think the link is the most important part of the K. If I can't understand how the aff links to the K, I probably won't vote on it. Links of omission are ok. If you want to win on a k, framework is a must.

Theory-I think that a majority of theory arguments,condo being the obvious exception, are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I default to condo being good. I'm fine with vagueness and the a-z spec theory arguments. However, I do not buy disclosure theory or new affs bad. I will only blatantly vote for disclosure if the team doesn't disclose before reading their speech. I will not judge kick unless you tell me to.

On case-Love it. I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Impact turns are cool.

K-Aff/Performance-I ran a borders k-aff my junior year,but that's about it. Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. I think you should be in the direction of the resolution. I think you should slow down a bit and explain your advocacy. The 1AC shouldn't just be pre-empts to T. ROB and ROJ are extremely important.

T-USFG/FW-I think that fairness is an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model.A good TVA is a good way to secure my ballot.

Speaks

You start off at a 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. If you chose to read straight from your computer with no analysis whats so ever, you will not be doing so well. If you chose to speak extemporaneously, keep flow, signpost, and keep me engaged then I will be happy to reward you with better speaks. +0.1 if you can make me laugh in one of your speeches. If you want something to gage speaks off then here.

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile.

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30.0: excellent; top speaker quality

Other

I'm fine with death good, but not in a weird way. IVIs are super underutilized. Keep track of your own time. I appreciate overviews.Paper debate is dumb. Impact calc is always good.

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

I like to think that I'm a tabula rasa judge. If you tell me how to vote and show me why you win, then you'll be in a good spot. If no one does that, I default policy maker with an exception of T/Theory.

Quinn Largent pronouns: ????? Let’s just go with They/Them for now

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 5/8/24)

LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

Tech > Truth. unless told to evaluate arguments diffrently.

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

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

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you. (this is one of the few things I can't be convinced of otherwise)

People who have influenced how I think about debate: Easton Logback, Kevin Krouse, Madison Troup, Aidan Foust.

I flow on paper

Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, cops good, Inequality good. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add)

TLDR:

Do what you want

there are no rules of debate just guidelines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and I'll vote for it. everything is always up for debate. (do not do this just to overpower people you know you are better than speaks will be affected but won't change if u win or lose)

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not so I will vote on out-of-round issues as long as there is proof because I can't vote on just he said she said scenario.

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

Specifics for adapting in the round:

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

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

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or what ur using.

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

Speaks

30 - literally perfect i have zero things I would change (I don't think I'll give these out like ever)

29.5+ - go win the tourney

29+ - go break

28.5 - average

below this is just below average for the tourney

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

If i can tell you who won ask me questions.

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

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

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

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

JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument. (this is amplified even harder after the fiscal topic because holy christ)

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff. (The burden of explanation does not change no matter what happened in the round idc how little they have responded)

IP topic Spec:I think soft left AFFs are going to be really good on this topic because the I/L chain to extinction makes almost zero sense for me right now (maybe someone will disprove me at some point this year). but rn i dont know how a actually topical aff will access it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----- T -----

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

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

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

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

i default to competing interps.

Affs extned your actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact. i will vote neg on presumption if the 2ar is just 5 minutes of you saying u are topical

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

----- CPs -----

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

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

Neg: have a net benefit.

ill be honest i ran a counterplan very few times and the times i went for it is even less. ill probably think about it very similary to a alt on a K because thats something im used to

Judge kick: TBH never done this in a round never ran against it and tbh I think its bad because it means I'm making a strategic decision for the negative for them. i mean if the neg tells me to judge kick ig I will unless the aff tells me not to for some reason.

IDK WHAT JUDGE KICK IS THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF CONDO MEANS LIKE THAT DOESNT HAVE A WARRANT HOW IS IT LOGICAL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

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

----- DAs -----

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

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly link paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

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

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

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

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

Link: after doing K debate a while good K teams will devolp more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independt reject teams because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

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

If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K

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

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

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

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

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

LD paradigm

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

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

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

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

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: its not fun to debate or judge but hey if u win u win ig.

PFD paradigm

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

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i want put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again as a prewarning sorry.

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

once again sorry.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Once again sorry

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

I am a fourth year debater who was been judging since last year. Whatever speed you like to speak at is comfortable with me, I can keep up with it. But if you are not clear and skip over words or insert your own, I will give you a warning. As for preferences in a debate round, I love good DA, CP, and on-case debates. I am not a fan of topicality or K debates but will still be fair when judging. I am also not a fan of theory arguments unless there is an obvious example of the other team being unfair, then I will reject the team. If an argument ever comes to evidence versus analytical arguments, I will vote on the evidence proven side, unless it is very crappy evidence. Judge instruction is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, and are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing.

any pronouns
Debated Varsity at Olathe East High School

To steal a quote from Easton Logback's Paradigm- “Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me”---Joshua Harrington

Much of my debate education was influenced by him, so read Easton Logback's paradigm if you want a better idea than what I fit here in the four minutes before the tournament. Feel free to ask me about any questions wrt. my paradigm.

I'm willing to evaluate any argument including wipeout, minus discrimination good. I'm tech over truth, and am comfortable with Ks, Theory, and generally whatever you can throw at me, although I may not be well versed in your literature. I primarily interacted with Cap, Imperialism, Psychoanalysis, Nietzsche, Fem, and some Baudrillard, when I debated.

Personal Notes: I love debates that come from an unconventional angle. Conditional affs, strange affs, theory-heavy negative strategies.

Olathe North Junior -- 2a/1n -- lynnsetter@gmail.com

Not debating much right now, I know how the IRS, a UBI, Social Security, medicare, etc. function, but you still need to tell me how it's relevant to your aff/neg

Hey novices! You're just starting to debate, so the number one rule is to have fun!

Basic opinions:

Evidence/argumentation: You're more likely to win a round if you know what you're talking about instead of reading your varsity debaters old blocks. if you can analyze a round in real time with your own evidence you will understand and participate in the round so much more!

As a debater I tend to lean more truth > tech, but I've won rounds on tech > truth, so if you want to, go for it.

Ballot framing!! If you tell me why you should win and the other team doesn't, I'm more likely to vote for you!

Flow: If you can read off your flow, try! You're a lot less likely to drop arguments!

Policy: I love a good da/cp combo, as long as you can explain. your. links. Please. I've ran and gone for T plenty of times, but don't bring T into the 2nr with three minutes of fairness and limits, tell me that their aff doesn't fit the resolution.

K's: Not my favorite argument, and you're going to need to explain the premise and the lit pretty well, but I'll listen to it. However, it would be low on my list of recommendations for novices.

Aff: As a 2a, I will have a lot of respect for the 2a, but also know how to utilize your prep time the most affectively so you can get your 1a enough time for the 1ar. Extend your impacts and explain, don't just say "extend our impact," and respond to case so you don't get destroyed in the block. If you can, please do your 2ar off your flow! it will sound so good!!

If you really want to run condo bad, go for it, but as a novice I don't think there's a real point.

Have fun and tell a joke!! You can do it!!

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."

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.

Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.***

If you read nothing else in this paradigm statement, read this: I reserve the right to vote down rude debaters and performers, based on principle alone. The world has enough anger; I won't participate in meanness. Not everything has to be sunshine and butterflies (I can be prickly, myself), but unkindness is a deal-breaker.

ALL DEBATE EVENTS: I don't come down with a hard line on tech vs truth, but in general, I tend to value truth over tech. That's not a popular position, I know. But empty sophistry is a problem in our community, y'all. Still, each round kind of shapes itself differently, and sometimes technical play matters more. This is good analysis of why I'm not tech over truth (https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/tech-and-truth-how-judges-are-ruining-debate), while paying careful attention to separate my opinions from the actual debate. But if an argument is weak, I'm under no obligation to accept it. Is that judge intervention? Then it is judge intervention. I'm your audience. I'm going to vote for somebody. Come win me.

POLICY DEBATE: I'm a current head coach, but I'm behind on some technical play and I may get lost if you get into the weird stuff. Still, I’ll try!

Having learned the game of debate before the ubiquity of the internet, I’m a classic (vintage?) example of a stock issues judge who likes fundamentally strong debate and who tends to dislike Kritikal debate because of the way it pressures the judge into unfair positions between competing social ills. Run them if you want and I'll make my best judgment, but if you put me in an untenable position of destroying the earth or ruining the humanity that's left, I won't like it. But even though I can flow rounds, weigh impacts, and know the difference between my aff and a perm, I firmly believe that speech skills actually matter-- stand up straight and make eye contact. Speak to the judge in the back of the room, not the electrons zipping across your screen.

I pine for the halcyon days of outline-structured arguments, numbered responses, and roadmaps that sounded something like “Disad #1, Topicality, Disad #2, then Case-in-order”.

It is not abusive to run new arguments in either second constructive; constructives are for constructing arguments; that is why they are called "constructive" speeches. "No New in the Two" is for the weak.

Paperless debate should make debate rounds faster and more efficient, not slow them down because we forgot to do the upload or sprawl with "did you get it?" email chain lags. If you're going to drag this round out for electronic reasons, keep your prep time running. It's not a voting issue, of course. But we all have a duty to keep the tournament moving. Make policy ninety-minutes again!

I'm not convinced that "stealing prep" is actually a thing. Get up there and start speaking; they don't steal prep if you're talking.

Counterplans must be non-topical, otherwise both teams are affirming the resolution and both teams want me to vote Aff. "If the world is against non-topical-only Counterplans, then I am against the world!" --St. Athanasius of Alexandria (attributed)

I am impressed when people seem to actually know their pre-prepared blocks, and when it seems like they've thought about this argument at least once before they're standing up to read at me. It's great when people understand the links and how to tell its story. It's less impressive if you grab the Generic DA team block and read it without knowing what you're reading.

L-D: I'm not exactly a lay judge in LD, but I won't be insulted if you treat me that way. I definitely skew trad over prog LD. I'm very interested in how your Value will inform the rest of your case. Is it a recurring value that informs your position, or is it some noble idea that really doesn't translate into the rest of your argumentation? Debaters that claim a value/criterion and then ignore it for the rest of the debate don't tend to do well with me.

PFD: Most of the policy stuff applies here, but adapt for PF. That said, I quite dislike the Policy-ization of PF. This event was created to be different from Policy, not a lesser version of it. Discuss ideas and use evidence well, but please don't try to speed spread me and please don't try to strong arm your opponents. It's not that I don't believe in PF, but it's that I don't believe I want to work that hard as a PF judge.

Congress: Do people read Congress paradigms? Hi, Congressperson! Don't be afraid to break script to talk to your chamber rather than just reading at them; a Congress of competing oratories isn't really debate. Also, walk that fine line between being fun and being serious. Let's both enjoy our time in the Congress room! I promise that I'll take my job as a judge seriously if you take your role as a Congress debater seriously. But if you're not serious about doing a good job, I don't feel like I need to reciprocate with a seriously good score. I love this event. Let's be good for each other in it.

Other hills on which I will die: Jokes don't really work in debate rounds; two slices of mediocre pizza and some water is not worth five dollars; signposting is the difference between an average debater and a good one. In Policy Debate, open Cross-Ex insults your partner. No one wants to shake your hand. Tabula Rasa is a unicorn. Medals should have ribbons. Hospitality rooms should have soda. Every debater should also do forensics.

Be nice to each other. Speak louder. And trust me on the sunscreen.

jwalberg@sjakeepingfaith.org

***This is the sunscreen joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI

As a judge, I am first looking for "Can I hear you?" and "Can I understand you?" That is something that is super important to me as a judge because you could have the best argument, but if no one can hear or understand you then what was it all for?

After diction and annunciation, I like to focus on how does the debate flow? Does it make sense? Do you look like you know what you are talking about? Always make sure you know what your topic is through and through so you don't look caught off guard.

I like to be as chill as possible, while also helping you grow. Anyone who has the guts to get up in front of people to talk about a multitude of subjects and speeches has an awesome gift and I am so excited to see you in the room.

As always, have fun!