Brett Cranor

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley Southwest High School

bvsw '23

ku '26 (not debating)

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com + bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

1--Read whatever. I'm open to functionally everything. Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable. I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The places where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

When I debated, which I did for four years in high school (1977-1980) and four years in college (1981-1985) one type of judge that I sometimes found frustrating was one who had debated 20+ years before and judged by those standards. Debate, like everything evolves, and it has continued to evolve since I've been actively involved. I try to not impose antiquated standards on debaters, but there are a few things that may be de-emphasized now that remain important to me. I'll try to spell out some of those below.

--I judge very few rounds every year. I usually begin late in the season, so debaters are used to resolution-based acronyms and slang that will be foreign to me. That also means that mentally it might take me a bit more time to process an argument than debaters are used to by the point in the season when I generally judge.

--Debate is an oral activity. While I judge based on the merits of the arguments and I am generallycomfortable with speed, there are limits. Most importantly, as I generally tell debaters before a round, don't talk faster than you can. I think that one of the casualties of the sharing of speeches back and forth is that vocal clarity is not important. I've heard too many otherwise excellent debaters who try to talk so fast that they don't enunciate. I don't like that.

--I don't care how much the debaters share their speeches and evidence with each other, but I will not participate in that. I'm not going to rely on what you've typed and shared to bail me out (really, to bail you out) if I didn't catch something. The only time I will look at evidence is after the round and only if it is disputed by the debaters in the round.

--I flow evidence (I don't write it down verbatim, but I capture key words and phrases and the essence of the piece of evidence on my flow). And since I don't want to see the evidence, you may have to make it clear when you're reading evidence what you want me to get from it.

--Other than evidence, the only thing I'm going to write down on my flow are arguments. If you want me to write it down, you need to make it clear that it's your argument. I think signposting (lettering/numbering your arguments) is really important, but it seems to be a lost art. But it's the best way to ensure that what you want me to consider gets down on my flow. Make sure also that you tell me where on my flow you want that argument to go. If you're answering an argument that your opponent made, make sure you know what argument you're answering.

--Where much of the above discussion becomes really important is on debate theory arguments--topicality, counterplan competitiveness, etc. Since these arguments don't generally involve evidence, they're harder to flow, because debaters just go from point to point without the natural pause to catch up on my flowing that an argument with evidence gives.

--I'll consider just about any argument, but it has to be backed up with reasoning and/or evidence. Having said that, it's important to know that I have intellectual biases that are really hard to overcome. For example, I believe that topicality is always a voting issue. I'll entertain the arguments that it is not, but to be honest, I don't think that I've ever voted affirmative on a topicality argument because they won the "topicality is not a voting issue" argument.

--Similarly, I have trouble with contradictory arguments or conditional arguments. But if you put forward a clear and well-justified reason why I should consider them, I'll consider them.

--My preferred paradigm (do debaters even use that term anymore?) is a policy maker paradigm.

Finally, I know I'm lazy. But what I would tell students in debate camp is that it's not just me--all judges are lazy. What this means is that I want you to write the ballot for me. Especially in the final two rebuttals, you need to clarify your position and tell me exactly why it's better--why what you just said answers what your opponents have said and why the impacts of the arguments you're winning outweigh your opponents' position and arguments. I think every speech should do that, but it's especially important in 2NR and 2AR. A well-crafted 2NR or 2AR that takes all of these arguments that are written on multiple sheets of paper all over my desk into a clearly-stated position is a thing of beauty that to me is like looking at a work of art.

Istealprep@gmail.com

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

***NDT/TOC Update: I have noticed a disturbing trend of more and more teams having evidence ethics issues. This includes but is not limited to: putting the wrong citation for their evidence, leaving out paragraphs in the middle of evidence, and getting information in the citation wrong (date and/or author). The community seems to have different standards for these types of arguments so I want to be explicit about mine. If you make an evidence ethics violation you must end the round and stake the round on the claim. I will then issue my decision based on if I believe there has been an evidence ethics violation. My decision will only be based on if there is in fact an evidence ethics violation. "we didn't mean to", "it wasn't done maliciously", and "we stole this evidence" are all irrelevant to me. You are responsible for the evidence you choose to enter into a debate.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

I would consider myself a stock issues paradigm judge. I try to look at those 5 issues and the relevancy, recency, and credibility of the evidence used to support those arguments. I also look for unanswered arguments or those otherwise not addressed or responded to that were brought up by the other team.

Anna Bolinger

She/They

Email: ABolinger2001@gmail.com

Debated at Kapaun Mount Carmel ('19)

Fine with speed, but keep it clear

Don't ask questions in CX after the timer stops; I'll stop listening

More cards =/= better cards. I'd rather have quality over quantity

If you have questions about arguments, feel free to ask me before the round

FW & T

If you're going to go for T that's fine, but keep it clear and concise. If it breaks down in the rebuttals and gets messy, it'll feel like a waste of time when the debate is over and I'll look at other arguments over T

Fairness and limits (if explained and carried through the speeches) can be persuasive

FW, like T, can get messy. If on aff, be sure to answer every aspect of the neg arg or I'll be more likely to vote neg

CP

If the neg commits to it, a CP can be a reason to vote neg. If you're going for it, go for it, avoid using it as a timesuck. STRONG solvency advocates for CPs are good and can strengthen your args when telling me why it's better versus the aff plan

K

I'm not an expert on Ks but I do like them. You're going to have to explain what your K is doing and please explain your alt. I've seen debates that get stuck in other aspects of the K while giving little to no attention to the alt, which is what you need to prove works

she/her/hers

yes i want to be on the email chain->aryanadb8@gmail.com

former debater / current coach for OE

run what you like to run lole

everything is debatable to me hence lack of concrete debate opinions in this paradigm. i feel like debate has turned into debaters changing their entire strat to adhere to the arguments that the judge wants to hear which leads to boring and stale debates in the long run. i want y'all to have fun and be creative! (->as long as everyone feels safe and comfy in round and in the overall debate space ofc)

only three things i ask for the rounds i judge

1.) be clear pls!! clarity>speed!

2.) good args>lots of args if the two need to be mutually exclusive. i will defer from what i said earlier in paradigm for a sec: i am probably not the judge to go twenty off in front of. better debates have fleshed out and evolved args on each page instead of throwing a billion different arguments at the wall in the 1nc and seeing what sticks.

3.) be nice please! everyone is here at ungodly hours on a weekend. everyone is tired and hungry. being passive aggressive (or being actively aggressive lmao) during a round is so lame! having a massive ego and thinking you're better than everyone else at a tournament is so lame! if there is an actual reason you can't be cordial to your opponents in round then that is something to say to your judge, your coach or the tournament director.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4@gmail.com

As of November 2024, I am actively working to increase my speaker points to match inflation. I will reward better points to well-researched teams who demonstrate command of topic literature in CX and their speeches. If a tournament gives 10 minutes of prep, I will increase your points for taking less prep.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I have found that most high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

At some level, this is just another old guy "be clear and flow!" paradigm, but I really mean it! Here are a few important things to consider when debating in front of me.

Use your flow to answer the other team's arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Highlighting is important. Definitely willing to lower the prioritization of an argument or ignore it entirely if it's highlighted nonsensically. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful indicits evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Establishing a clear interpretation is important. "Process bad" doesn't mean much to me.

The link comes first.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 3rd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

Paradigm for Dec. 2023 policy debate tournament at Lawrence High School:

2016-2020, varsity/DCI division policy debater in high school, flow judge.

Haven’t judged/debated in years, my hearing might not keep up with spreading quite as well as I could before but I’ll probably be fine

Open to voting for & have won before on Ks, K affs, condo bad/good, FW/T, policy plans, PICs, presumption. Don’t know anything about this year’s resolution, probably not too educated on specific mechanisms/law that will be discussed (like social security).

Any type of debate style is fine, I’ll probably tend to “follow” you to your level/style with my judging but I default on tech>truth flow. You can win on whatever you can argue.

Ask any questions

Former assistant coach for Lawrence High for two years. Debated at Olathe South for 4 years.

Updated 12/7/24

General Preferences

Do what you do best. There are very few arguments that I hate on a deep level or am in love with. I'm usually more comfortable with policy arguments but am familiar with K literature.

I've only judged sporadically this season, so starting off at under your top speed and working up to it would be helpful.

For me, your first priority should be on ensuring you have solid analysis in the debate. You can have the best evidence and arguments that could truly be deciding factors, but if the rebuttals consist of you just extending a bunch of cards or shallow one-line summaries of analytics from the constructives, you're not going to win. Tell me how the argument functions and why it's true. Without this work, that argument doesn't really exist on the flow to me.

More than anything please be nice. Snarkiness is awesome but there's a line between funny and just mean. Mistakes happen and I believe this is a fantastic space to educate each other. However, blatant sexism, racism, and any other -isms will not be tolerated. If in doubt, don't say it in the round, and let's have a conversation after.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can matter very little. On the flip side, if you have an amazing case that you pull through and defend you can afford to risk linking to a DA. That doesn't mean don't run any off-case or feel free to undercover a DA, but having a great case debate can be very beneficial.

DAs: DAs are great. If they're generic, that's fine. If they're case-specific, even better. That being said, explain your internal link chain. Don't just spend every speech telling me why extinction is awful.

CPs: I think CPs are fun, but they do have to be competitive. I won't do the work for the aff, but if they perm it and it's very clearly not competitive, it'll be hard for you to come back from that.

Ks: Like I said, I don't have a super in-depth knowledge of specific kritiks but I do have a decent background in a good portion of philosophy. If you explain the basic thesis of the K, we should be good. That's not an excuse to use a bunch of weirdly long words that sound "kritiky" and then assume I know what you meant. Just like any other argument, give me warrants and analysis. Please tell me what the alt does! I'm all for unique alternatives, but I need to understand exactly what is going to happen.

K Affs/ Non-traditional Affs: I'm definitely open to non-traditional affirmatives, but I do tend to believe the affirmative has to be in the direction of the topic and have some kind of plan/ advocacy statement. What exactly that looks like is up to you, I just need to understand what exactly you're advocating for. If you aren't in the direction of the topic/ you reject the resolution, I'll definitely listen and keep an open mind. However, it tends to be pretty easy for negative teams to win on framework.

I haven't judged many non-traditional affs so I can't tell you if I lean more towards framework or the aff, but I like both so you have a good shot either way. For framework, you can definitely argue that they have to relate to the topic or have a stated advocacy, but saying they should be excluded entirely is not going to go over well.

Theory: Not my favorite thing, but I'll always listen to it. It gets really annoying when seven different blippy theory arguments are read and then because the aff didn't respond to the sixth standard on you fifth theory argument that you blew through at the speed of light the entire round ends up coming down to that argument. A couple are totally fine, but more than that gets confusing.

Topicality: I like T, especially when it plays in with other arguments. It's always a voter, never a reverse-voter.

Framing: It seems like it's becoming more and more common to have pretty extensive impact framing debates. That's totally cool and I think it's a really interesting debate to be had. However, just reading a card that says probability first or extinction first doesn't make it true. Just like any other argument, give me the warrant and analysis.

Overall, run what you're good at and what you like. Make it the kind of round you want to have and I'll do my best to conform to it. With the exception of a few things, most of the stuff on here is pretty flexible if you explain a different perspective. Please ask me any other questions you have!

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

He/Him

ctdunn7@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence High School in Kansas for four years (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water).

Currently, I'm a journalism and political science student at the University of Kansas.

I have judged 5-10 rounds a year since I graduated. I have judged 0 rounds on the IPR topic.

Paradigms are too long. Here is the most important stuff. Feel free to ask specific questions.

What can you run?

Anything. Please just run what you like. I will always evaluate arguments to the best of my abilities.

If it matters to you, my personal experience was mostly with policy arguments and basic Ks. I am less experienced with K affs and more advanced Ks, but I did debate them from time to time.

I likely won't have deep knowledge of most topic-specific things, but I'm happy to learn.

How will I evaluate the round?

I will flow on paper and decide the round based solely on resolving the arguments that I have on my flow.

I am comfortable evaluating and flowing fast debates. Clarity and pen time are necessary. The faster you go, the less confident I am in my ability to get everything.I firmly believe speed is a tool to increase the quality of a debate, not to make your opponents scared and uncomfortable. You should be able to adapt your speed and style to the division you're competing in and who is on the judge panel.

Judge instruction is important. If there is something that I missed that is so consequential that it changes the outcome of the debate, you probably should have made a bigger deal out of it. Tell me why to vote for you. This is a game of persuasion and even if you're "correct" you still have to persuade me of that. Debate is about what you say, not what you send in a speech doc.

What will improve your speaks and/or improve your chance of winning the ballot?

Contextualization. Specific Links. Turns. Good warrants. Smart cross-ex. Rebuttals on paper. Organization. Being funny. Being nice. T debates about whether an aff should be topical not whether it technically is topical.

What will hurt your speaks and/or damage your chance of winning the ballot?

8+ off. Shotgunning generic links and hoping the 1AR drops one. Reading cards but not telling me why they matter. Being rude. Saying "my partner will answer that in their next speech" during CX and then your partner never answers it.

"Why does a shark have teeth? A shark has teeth to eat! And why does a whale have feet? Well...I....don't know?" - Jack Stratton (this is the quote I live by)

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

• The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
• Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
• Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
• This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
• I am not going to stop you from doing open cross-ex, but I really think it is overutilized and generally uneducational. In most situations, the best outcome is that you look mean or make your partner look incompetent. If your strategy revolves around not letting your partner speak in cross-ex, do not expect to receive high speaker points from me.

I debated in the mid-'90s at Lawrence HS in Kansas and have judged sporadically in the last 30 years. I'm happy to listen to any types of arguments but am most comfortable in a policy-oriented debate. I'll need more explanation for critical arguments, both the thesis of the position and how I should evaluate it, because I'm not as experienced with them. I'm comfortable listening to a relatively fast high school debate. However, I'm not as in practice as I once was, and my hearing isn't as good as it used to be, so I need you to prioritize clarity and to slow down in theory debates or detailed topicality debates. I also want to be able to comprehend evidence as you read it; I don't read evidence very much after a debate unless there is a dispute. I'll often give nonverbal cues if I can't understand you. I think the affirmative needs to defend topical action but am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. I enjoy good counterplan debates, particularly a counterplan written with a specific affirmative in mind. PICs can be good if they are well designed with a clear net benefit. I am not particularly enthusiastic about conditionality.

Finally, I like to see debaters making choices in rebuttals, not going for too many arguments, and telling a coherent story to help me write the ballot. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the debate; I'll do my best to give any insight I can into how I think about a debate.

Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.

I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round.

I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/cannibalism/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.

I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just delivered. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.

Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.

On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time I might ask you (during prep, for example) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.

Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

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!

I go by Alex, and my pronouns are she/her. I am a former open debater and I am an assistant debate coach. I work as an elementary speech-language pathologist, so speech is a big component of my life.

Background/Voting:

As a former debater, I can usually follow along with arguments. I am open to hearing any type of arguments, but I tend to focus heavily on clarity/links of arguments (like a lay judge). I am receptive to hearing any type of argument though, as long as it is clear. I want you to have fun, so really, do whatever you think is best. Just make sure I can follow along.

I try to keep my personal opinions/beliefs outside of the arguments. I want you to convince me to vote for you, and I don't want my personal beliefs and biases to affect that. I will always come in with the thought that I will vote for either team, regardless if I personally agree or disagree with what you are arguing. Winning is contingent on you convincing me that your argument is best, and to do that, you can't just read a bunch of evidence. You will need to summarize an apply that evidence to your argument.

Rate of Speech/Speaking Style

I do not like speed reading (spreading). I am a speech-therapist and spreading drives me absolutely bonkers. It affects your articulation and your fluency. I do believe (based on my area of work) spreading can be unfair to opponents so, for fairness, don't spread. If you want me to hear your argument please don't do it. With that being said, have seen debaters with articulation, fluency (i.e. stuttering), other speech disorders. If that is something that is a concern to you, don't worry! That will not affect your speaker points, and if you are super worried about it, feel free to let me know.

Misc.

I will keep a flow of the round, and I heavily suggest you do as well. Also- I do not tend to keep time. I will sometimes set a timer, but a good chunk of the time, I forget. Please keep your own time. If you ask me how much prep you have left, I probably will not know. So be responsible of your own time. If there are arguments about times, I'm going to make my best judgement to help, but that will likely be the best I can do.

Be respectful to your opponents. Respect pronouns, don't be racist, etc. You can disagree with a person and have heated debate related arguments, but don't be a jerk. If you are blatantly disrespecting an opponent/if anything extreme is happening, I will report it to your respective coach.

I have no preference regarding if I am included on email chains or not. If a team would like to include me, please email alexandra.ginsberg@usd497.org and please let me know once you have emailed (emails tend to go in spam).

Overall: As long as there is clarity in your argument and you can show me that you understand your argument(s), you are good to go. I want you to have fun, just make sure I understand what is happening, and that you don't seem lost yourself.

Overall: if you are clear about your arguments and can show me you understand what you are saying (and not just reading), we are good to go.

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I wrote my dissertation this summer and have done basically zero reading in this topic literature. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific scholarship you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round. Anything else wastes everyone's time.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I try to use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

He/Him

Perring12345@gmail.com (Please add me to email chains)

Former LHS debater. Did mostly KDC and DCI.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Info:

1)Its been a while since I have thought critically about anything related to debate. It may take me a second to piece everything together but I should get there eventually

2) Nothing will make a round more unenjoyable than being mean or rude to myself or the opposing team. Please just try to have a good time, don't take yourself too seriously, and do the best you can.

3)Will generally default to tech over truth unless you are incredibly convincing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument Opinions:

DAs/CPs:

Feel that they are generally most effective when ran together, but either can be effective on their own. I was more of a policy-centric debater so this is more of my bread and butter. I think the most important part of a DA is explaining to me how the link works, and if ran in conjunction with a CP, why it doesn't link to the CP.

T:

I was never a big T guy but I understand its appeal. At this point in my debating life, a lot of the intricacies of topicality have escaped my mind. If you do a good job articulating the violation and give me a good reason to vote for it, I have no problem doing so. As I have judged more rounds, T violations that the AFF obviously meets will make me angry, which does not bode well for you.

K:

My sophomore and junior years were both plagued by Ks so I have a touch of familiarity with them. Need framework to be articulated well in order for me to be able to follow along. Link threshold is fairly high.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read this far and want a couple of extra speaker points, every time you say or do something that elicits a giggle, you climb up my good side.

Francisco Guardado [He/Him]

Email: fguardado163@gmail.com

Experience: I debated for four years at Salina South High School, mostly KDC, but I did dabble in DCI.

TL;DR: Do whatever you want, just do it well and don’t be racist/homophobic/sexist. I’ll do my best to adapt to your style. Be clean on the flow and explain things that need explaining, I.E. don’t assume I’m a cybernetics fanatic. Cool with speed if your opponents are.

Topicality/Theory

Personally, I believe that topicality is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove in-round abuse. Same with other theory arguments.

Disadvantages

Yes please, I love disads. This goes for all arguments, but please do impact calc - if you don’t it’s going to make my decision frustrating.

Counterplans

Not a fan of counterplans, but you can run them if they have a net benefit. I believe counterplans are conditional, but don’t abuse that.

Kritiks

Not well versed on many K’s. I am familiar with cap, queer, set col, and feminism. Anything else, please take some time to explain. Must have a framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs. Case.

Framework / Kritik Affirmatives

If I’m your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I’ll try my best to evaluate both arguments as fairly as possible. I tend to be 50/50.

He/Him

Assistant debate coach for Lawrence Free State (LFS), current KU student. Graduated from LFS in '22, debated all four years (fast debate sophomore year, KDC junior/senior). I don't debate in college.

Put me on the email chain: theezrajoseph@gmail.com

For debaters primarily competing in DCI/faster styles: your best bet is treating me as a flay judge. You can try spreading if you want to, but there is no guarantee that I will keep up/catch everything, especially if I'm flowing on paper. Obviously, that's on a spectrum, and you can be quicker than conversational if you want to be, but I almost certainly will not pick up analytics you're speeding through at 100%. I would love to say, "Go for whatever you're comfortable going for," but unfortunately for both of us, I went for disads/counterplans, so that's what I'm the most comfortable listening to. Again, you can try your critical affirmative/kritik in front of me, and I will do my best to adjudicate, but you're just increasing your likelihood of getting an RFD that you're unhappy with/doesn't make sense to you.

For debaters primarily competing in KDC/JV/novice: this is the style of debate I spent more time with, both competitively and from a judging standpoint. So, do whatever you're used to/comfortable with and I'll be fine. Things that will make me happy include using your flow, line-by-line debate, and impact calc + judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR.

General miscellaneous: full claims require a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will be flowing, and if I'm really on top of it and not running on fumes, timing prep as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Make clear, concise, well planned argument for you case.  Quality over quantity and speed.  Quality, relevance and date of sources is important.

Paradigm

Email: Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

Coaching:
Olathe North Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - Policy/LD/PF
Simpson College Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - LD focus
Olathe East Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach (2017-2024) - Policy and LD focus

Debate experience:
4 years competing in Policy and LD in High School
3 years competing in College Parli debate (NPTE/NPDA circuit)

If you only read one thing on this paradigm, it should be my thoughts below on extending arguments:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately (see above paragraph) and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool/offense and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks (ESPEICALLY IF THEY ARENT IN THE DOC). 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately and generate offense against the resolution. I wish negs going for framework did more work explaining how the TVA articulated is sufficient instead of just reading their blocks with random TVAs v K aff, these debates are often shallow and too generic. I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for the aff as opposed to a full rejection of the topic, but I've voted for both a decent amount. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

Document sharing:

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Ev Quality:

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed. I don't go back and thoroughly re-read every piece of evidence after the round unless it is a card that has become a key point of contestation.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Jon Lane (He/Him)

Email: jlane@prepkc.org

Debated extensively in high school all four years 04-08. Dabbled in college. Used to judge at least a few tournaments yearly, but I haven't judged since 2019. I read the topic the day before the tournament, which is as much knowledge as I will have before my first round on Saturday.

I can still keep up with flow and handle speed. Philosophically open to any and all argumentation, provided you give an argumentation for why I should vote for you. The clearer and more concise of a case you make in the round is primarily what I'm looking for. Your mileage may vary.

Updated January 2023.

Yes I want to see your docs, so include me on the email chain (if you’re using one and not just doing speechdrop which is easier IMO). savannahlegler@gmail.com

I flow on my laptop on an excel sheet so there will be significant typing

My pronouns are they/them

Policy paradigm

I recommend reading this whole thing but I know it's long so TLDR; DO NOT SPREAD I will not flow it, likes Ks and K affs but you should understand the lit and IMO they can be abusive if you're just trying to confuse the other team, prefs specific (not generic) DAs, weird CPs can be abusive, T is meh (mostly because people don't run it right), other theory is ok. Framework debates will be prioritized over my personal preferences mostly. I don’t tolerate harassment/abuse of any kind, have warranted args, don’t clip cards, flow every speech in the round. Ethics philosopher cares about ethics so be ethical please. If you need to stop the round because of mental or physical health reasons, just tell me, I've been there

Background

I did policy all four years of high school at Olathe Northwest and have coached there for two years. I am a philosophy and psychology major at KU with a minor in women, gender, and sexuality studies. My favored branches of philosophy are ethics, political, and metaphysics and I’m specializing in abnormal psychology. I am familiar with a lot of theory as a result of my majors and experience, but I do have trouble remembering exact details like authors. I catch on quickly to new theoretical arguments and I thoroughly enjoy k debate. I’m not very familiar with the older style of debate (plan planks and contentions).

Truth informs tech. I’m not going to be voting on warrantless arguments or blatant untruths, that’s an abusive way to try and win the round and I think judge intervention is necessary. I think this applies most frequently to theory blocks, since a lot of times there isn’t an established internal link between the structural harms you’re citing (eg. neg block side skew) and the proposed solution (eg. aff sets framework). If you establish that internal link, it should be fine. My logic here is that you wouldn’t expect me to vote on a DA without an internal link, so why would you do that with theory? Additionally, I’m a strong believer that technical nonresponses to unreasonable arguments don’t outweigh winning substantive arguments and, because debate is about clash and education and discussion, I will always prefer to see discussion of important topics rather than arguments that are just there as distractions.

Overall, explain the things you’re saying because I’m not going to vote on an argument you don’t actually make (but I also won’t vote on warrantless args).

I think the idea that debate is a game and the goal is to win is extremely harmful. Just trying to dump cards on your opponent to make them slip up and not respond to something is slimy, same with running stuff and banking on the fact that the other team just won't understand what you're arguing. You're not helping yourself get better at analysis and argumentation by avoiding clash to win on technicalities and misunderstandings. I view debate as a space to have conversations and expand knowledge bases, a place for high schoolers to engage in political philosophy, and that requires everyone understanding what's going on and everyone operating fairly. Winning is nice, but unethical strategy in the name of winning is a major problem in debate. If this comes up as a meta argument in round, know I will not buy your debate as a game good theory, I simply won't budge on this one area.

Evidence

Don’t clip. It’s pretty simple to say “cut the card there” and send out a marked copy once your speech is done (I recommend spamming tab on your laptop to mark where you stopped because it can be easily done mid speech and makes sure your marked doc is correct and sent in a timely manner after your speech). I realize that, especially since I’m asking you not to spread, that you’re going to need to cut things off, but just take the two seconds to make me aware of it so I don’t have to get you disqualified for clipping (I really don’t want to have to do that). If your evidence is fraudulent or altered in any way, I will probably find out, and it will cost you the round and maybe the tournament, and I’ll chat with your coach about it. Just don’t do it, there’s plenty of evidence out there and it’s unethical to be making your own.

Aff burden

Aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, but this doesn’t exclude k affs. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to do a policy aff, but that’s not always what people go with. Relating to the res in an abstract way is valid if you can explain that. Be prepared to defend why your approach is best for debate and why your take on the resolution is necessary. If the debate ends and I’m unclear what an aff ballot means, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

Neg burden

A neg ballot is usually whatever you pull through to the 2NR. If you want to argue judge kick for a CP to also have the squo as an option, you’re going to have to do some theory lifting in order to get me there because I lean toward multiple worlds existing on the neg ballot being inherently abusive. Explain why it’s not. K alts and CPs are functionally the same to me, the difference is in the complexity, so just make sure your alt and what it means for the ballot is clear. If you're running a k with no alt you're gonna have to explain why you don't need one.

Speaking

Do not spread. I will not flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I have an auditory processing disorder. You don't need to spread to win. I get that you may find it annoying, but you need to be able to adapt to judge preferences and this is what I’m asking of you. I’m asking for speech docs for accessibility and to monitor for clipping, not to fill in gaps on my flow. You have to make connections and read off the args for them to get on there.

Keep track of what you read and what you don’t read and where you’re marking cards. Sending impossibly long speech docs (like whole camp files) that you know are more than you can read is bad practice. Essentially, trying to trick your opponent/the judge into believing you read a card you didn’t read is extremely unethical and over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you. Explicitly falsely claiming to have read a card in a previous speech is a round loss. You should be flowing your own speeches to avoid this happening.

Argument choices

You need to be running full arguments in your speeches. Starting a DA or T in one speech and saving the impact/voters for the block is abusive and not having those things at all means that you've wasted your own time because I can't vote on that argument. DAs need uniqueness, a link, and an impact (sometimes and an internal link). T needs an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

I love kritiks. This is probably not surprising as a philosophy major, and I do a lot of theory in my classes (I don’t just take major related classes so I’m familiar with economic oriented theory as well). I probably won’t have read exactly what you’re reading, but I’m familiar with a wide range of concepts and am comfortable with my ability to understand complicated arguments. The stuff I’m most familiar with is queer theory, biopower, settler colonialism, afro-pessimism, feminism, and anything relating to ethics. However, this is not a freebee to just run something because you think it'll confuse the other team. Philosophical discussions go both ways and I'm going to like your K a lot more if you're being diplomatic and helping the other team get your point so they can actually respond. In K debates you should be focusing on having a productive, fair philosophical debate with your opponent and that gets really muddled when all anyone cares about is the W. A fair warning about Ks, I will probably understand your lit better than you do, 9 times out of 10 this is the case, and this means I will notice if you don't understand the argument you're running, so best to run Ks you're comfortable with and not just something you pulled from open ev just for this round.

I will vote on topicality, but I think running it when you know an aff is topical is tacky (in a roll my eyes kind of way not a vote you down kind of way). However, I get that sometimes you don’t have anything else to run because you’re not a k team. Reasonability to me is more about there being multiple acceptable interpretations of a word, so if you’re not meeting any definition in the round, you’re probably not reasonably topical. I’m less lenient to obscure policy affs than to k affs on t and that’s a personal preference that you should be aware of (this is based on how useful I think each are to debate; the former not at all and the latter extremely). I’m probably not going to buy into t isn’t apriori to my decision but if you think you can convince me, go for it by all means. You don’t need 5 minutes of t in the 2NR for it to be convincing, but sometimes you need that five minutes to cover everything that’s happened on the t flow, so play it by ear. I don’t really enjoy t debates, they get really reductive a lot of times because it devolves into semantics for semantics' sake. I know some people are really into them, but I personally think there’s more important discussions to be had and throwaway t args are a waste of time. However, recall that I will vote on t because it is important.

DAs and CPs aren’t super interesting unless you have something that’s not generic. You can win on them, like everything, but I find big stick, low probability impacts dull and they’re one of my least favorite parts of debate. Politics DAs need to be updated to be relevant and even then, they’re a lot of speculation and fear mongering so be careful how you’re arguing. CPs are a whole can of worms and can easily be annoying to judge and abusive to the aff. PICs are iffy for me since the aff isn’t just coming up with the best possible plan, it’s the best possible plan and fitting in the resolution, but if you can argue theory for them then, as with most things, be my guest.

I prefer structural impacts because big stick impacts feel like sensationalized news headlines IMO, but it's not a hard preference in any way.

Theory is fun but needs to be clear and have internal links, as stated above. I don’t really have much more to say than don’t use theory as a time waster because it usually means it’s argued poorly, doesn’t apply, and makes you look bad.

A lot of people assume they’re winning every flow, but you’re probably not, so I recommend using the “even if” layering of argumentation in rebuttals to have flows interact with each other. Best to not assume you’re winning and built contingencies into your speeches for me.

Flowing

You should be flowing, even if it’s from the speech doc for accessibility reasons (another reason why marked copies are important, I did this all the time). If you respond to arguments that weren’t presented, your speaks will suffer for it, and obviously, not responding to a core argument because you weren’t flowing could cost you the round.

Apparently, y’all have decided prewritten overviews are the new hip thing. It doesn’t sound like a great idea to me, mostly because overviews should be short summaries of what you’re extending in the speech in the context of the current round (exception to this is aff case extensions, go ahead and prewrite those to your heart’s content). Every round shakes out different, so you should be adapting your extensions to what’s going on in front of the judge. Line by lines are very nice but I recognize they require a lot of organization. It’s usually better to go through each individual argument rather than doing each flow as an argument, since a lot of detail can be lost. Prewritten overviews that aren’t for unaddressed, pure extensions will be affecting your speaks.

Misc

I’m not going to tolerate any harassment, abuse, insulting, or exclusion in rounds (this is for extreme cases, which do happen, unfortunately). As someone who has experienced those things and been frustrated by judge apathy in the name of intervention philosophy, the debate space has to be accessible and equitable for everyone who is participating and that is the most a priori thing in a round. If someone is having a breakdown or is uncomfortable in ways I can’t visibly recognize, let me know and we can take a break. Your mental health and sense of belonging in the debate space is the most important thing to me and I won’t let other people compromise that for you. I will not tolerate violent, bigoted rhetoric being used in round. I’ve had people say I shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debate, to vote, or to make my own decisions because of aspects of my identity and I will absolutely not allow you to make these arguments. I am hard zero tolerance about this. You do not have the right to make the debate space unsafe.

Disclosure should be reciprocal in order to be ethical. If you wiki mined the aff’s case, you should disclose negative positions. In rounds where there’s a disagreement about disclosure, it’s unlikely to be the topic of my RFD, but I will probably have some criticism if there’s clear unfairness. Hold yourselves accountable for ethical practices.

The only time I will reject a team instead of an argument is on abuse/harassment/exclusion.

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural ‘22

Michigan ’26

Coach for TAS, OCSA, and Washburn Rural

Judging

I will decide debates purely on my flow and the words I hear you speak. Prioritizing dropped arguments will be the best and quickest way for me to vote for you, and I will be more likely to decide on small technical errors, especially if you point them out or make them relevant.

If my flow is not sufficient to decide an argument I will look at evidence, whether it is because:

1. The flow is too close, i.e., no dropped arguments, lack of impact calculus, the debate is two ships passing by, etc.

2. The line-by-line is a dispute over evidence, whether quality or applicability.

If you predict debates coming down to this, provide a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and name specific authors or cards for my decision. This metric can include recency, expertise, causality, citations, etc. If a metric is never set, I will favor better-highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness.

I will try my hardest to flow, judge, and make the best decision possible, but I am imperfect. My biggest flaws that you can quickly adapt to are:

1. Typing. I attempt to flow cross-ex and transcribe every speech, but the combination of debaters blitzing through blocks at 300 WPM, typos, and debaters talking over each other means I miss 5-10% of text per debate. I do not think I have ever missed an argument in its entirety, but it would behoove you to be clear and flowable. Even when I miss things, I will remember the context and the surrounding words, but that is not as reliable as the words on my flow.

*A lot of debates I've judged, especially clash and competition debates, have vital moments and/or round deciding moments in cross-ex where specific phraseologies are used or concessions are made. Making cross-ex's matter and making cross-ex flowable (not talking over each other, shouting, etc.) is best.

2. Knowledge Gaps. I try to stay in tune with wikis, argumentative trends, the news, and core topic themes, but there is a lot I do not know about. Things I have learned about in my time judging without much prior knowledge or personal debate experience include interest rates, Erdogan’s political trouble, the racism paradox, the many ways humans could survive nuclear war, laches, textual topicality, and the barebones of random philosophies. While most debates do not require an in-depth knowledge of individual issues, the best debates and debaters do, and I will try to match that. If it turns out that I am a moron, over-explaining different arguments could benefit you, i.e., speeding through moral philosophy and hypotheticals at max speed is a way to win, but probably not the way to win.

Both can be easily overcome with clear, precise, technical debating and having a more explanatory narrative than the other team. While I appreciate and reward technically proficient debaters, making my decision come down to the second half of subpoint D of subpoint 11 at 300 WPM is not ideal.

Here is my decision-making process proper if this helps you structure final rebuttals:

1. I will almost always start deciding debates where the debaters tell me to start, i.e., in framework debates, most debaters say to start on fairness as an impact or ballot solvency, or if the 2NR is a DA and impact defense, I will start assessing the risk of impacts first. This also means picking and choosing arguments is better than shot-gunning arguments.

2. If neither rebuttal tells me where to start deciding, I will start where I think is the most logical point of contestation. Given the lack of (1), this is where I start most of my decisions.

3. I will highlight cells on my flow for what is dropped and/or relevant to deciding first-order issues and so forth until every cell with words in my cell is highlighted (if this includes reading cards, I will put relevant card authors/warrants next to those cells). This process also includes striking new cells that could not be traced back to the 2AR.

4. I try to decide based on the exact words said by debaters to avoid intervening.

Observations

The above should obviate everything below because none of my ideologies, thoughts about the debate, or biases will affect my decision, but here are my impressions that could matter to you:

1. Ideology. The critique has been less than 5% of my 2NRs since I joined the activity, but about half of the debates I judge are clash debates. Critical teams that impact turn framework have had the most success in front of me, especially because most 2ACs do not counter-define the resolution. Framework 2NRs with a robust defense of fairness combined with lots of no link + the AFF links more to their offense has had the most success. Both sides are better suited to specify and apply their blocks to the debate or 1AC at hand. Critiques on the NEG usually succeed when they moot the plan; every other version seems more fallible.

2. Side bias. I have been a 2N my whole career and think being NEG is hard on most topics. My default is infinite conditionality, but I have been persuaded otherwise in a handful of debates. 2Ns should make their condo blocks topic-specific and go for flexibility or arbitrariness. 2As should ensure their 1ARs say enough words so the 2AR is not new and needs a robust defense of dispositionality. My default is to judge kick. Most 2ACs and 1ARs commit egregious amounts of under-coverage on the case, and 2Ns should quickly point this out. I will quickly strike ‘new’ parts of the 2AR to protect the 2NR. Lastly, I find myself voting NEG frequently on turns case where I think most AFFs do not have a great answer to.

3. Argument quality. All arguments are fair game. Degradation in quality should be quickly dispatched with high-quality evidence or low-hanging responses. I do not feel distaste for impact turns like spark or ‘generic’ CPs like process. I think the AFF is favored in both debates, but the NEG normally has tricks that help them. Your speaks most likely will not suffer from deploying strategies like above. However, if your A-strat is hiding ASPEC in the middle of the 2NC, you may get the ballot, but your speaks will definitely suffer. Lastly, I think most debate impacts and internal links are non-intrinsic or rely on a reality distortion, so I am more amenable than most to smart analytical advantage CPs.

Hi, I'm Frances Parker (any pronouns)

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years, and I did a bit of debate at KU!

I'm really excited to be judging, I love debate so much, and I really am trying my best to be a good and educational judge!

add me to the email chain francesesparker@gmail.com

General things:

truth=tech

speed is fine but send out your speeches and slow on tags and analytics a bit, not sending out analytics usually feels a little ableist. I want you to feel confident enough as a debater that you dont need to do little tricks to scare the other people (and me)

run whatever you love, I'll pretty much vote on anything. I love k's and k affs- just be in the direction of the topic. I am most familiar with ableism, imperialism, anti-blackness, queer k, and a little cap

please have fun, smile, and i love a joke but I also like people who don't sacrifice offensiveness in their ethos

if you do speeches well off the flow and off the dome I'll hype your speaks up.

I am pre-med and majoring in molecular biology and math which really influences who I am.

I think ethos, confidence, and speech cadence is one of the most important things and that is so much forgotten. Give me that amazing judge instruction that I can't disagree with.

At the end of the day, my opinions only mean so much, I will adjudicate based on what you want me to think is the most important, and I will vote for what is

K specific:

Super great!! I love to see specific links and really good case specificity. I think that I am in general a big fan of big picture k's that display how this case in particular feeds into structures that negatively harm the world. Having a good alt and a good alt articulation I think is really powerful. If you make an alt really seem like a net ben to the aff that they can't solve because of their links, I think that is really compelling. K's v K affs are good too. I

have fun:~)

me

she/her. debating @ the university of kansas. debated at lawrence free state. coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow. aaronjpersinger@gmail.com. put me on the chain! have it sent before or at start time, please and thanks.

tldr

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to most of my decisions than small technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

addendum re: dsds #2..."what cards did you read" is a cross question. "where did you mark cards" is not...but if you have zero intention of asking about marked ev or using it in the next speech, please just start cx. your speaks are capped at a 25 if you clip...i will still give feedback on the debate, but you will catch an L regardless.

policy

i learned how to debate in kansas and have spent my fair share of time thinking about stock issues and counterplans and disads. i coach teams that exclusively say policy things on the aff and neg. do with that information what you will.

my threshold for voting for dropped arguments has increased with the trend of teams not properly extending their affs/impacts to disads. yes do work on the line-by-line, but explain impacts and solvency mechanisms as you do it. i will not vote on things that you don't extend as a complete argument.

k

i have spent most of my debate career reading arguments about/in the veins of trans studies, queer theory, black feminism, anti-capitalism, sex work, and embodiment. i love good k debates, but really dislike bad ones that result from overadaptation.

i walk into debates with the assumption that the aff gets to weigh the plan and its consequences, and the neg gets links to all facets of the aff, including performance, affect, representations, etc. framework matters a lot to me and should be used to guide judge instruction if you want me to change the above assumptions.

link texture is good and helps tremendously in close debates...examples, framing arguments, turns case arguments, etc.

k affs

framework teams usually lose in front of me when they don't explain internal links and terminal impacts in the 2nr and/or do not answer case. affirmative teams usually lose in front of me when they don't answer turns case arguments and/or have insufficiently extended defense.

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed...this is especially true for theory, permutation, and competition arguments. non-clarity is functionally the same as clipping...i'll clear you twice before your speaks start to go down.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i rarely read evidence at the end of debates and will not interpret it/the implications of ev on your behalf...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

I debated policy and competed in forensics for four years in high school. I am comfortable with any arguments and speeds, although I would prefer you not run Topicality solely as a time suck.

Anything goes (I love K though)

anthonyracy@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

Assistant Coach - Mill Valley

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience, I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days, but I will see an LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Traditional LD/Kansas LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I am not amused by making every event like policy; if I wanted that, I would go judge policy, and yes, there is a time and a place for a "progressive" style of LD, but your local circuit that barely does LD for half a semester isn't one of them.

General Things

1. Framework is SUPER IMPORTANT to me. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

2. Please have consistent case content in relation to your framework. I can't begin to recount how many times I have heard someone read a Kant framework and then go on to read a bunch of Utilitarian arguments. If you do this, I might cry a little. :(

3. I typically enjoy moral-based argumentation that includes philosophy or some type of explanation for why an obligation exists. After all, most of the time, the resolution asks "ought" not "should." However, if you're going for strictly practical argumentation, it would be nice for you to still explain how stopping extinction is key for moral stability and how it links to your framework properly.

4. ANALYTICS ARE GOOD. I don't expect a 1AR to read many cards in a 4-minute rebuttal speech when they can't go fast. However, if your analysis is blippy analytics with bad or no warrants at all, it won't get you far with me.

5. Crystalize, Crystalize, Crystalize. In a 45-minute round where you only get 13 minutes of speech time, you need to tell me what the most important arguments are, why you won them, and how they fulfill the framework. Line by line is necessary, no doubt, but I need to know why your arguments matter and what they should mean for my ballot.

Extra Note: I will disclose if you ask and with the consent of both debaters. If you don't ask, I will assume that you don't want to know.

AGI Topic

Although I think the idea of this topic isn't a bad one, it is considerably less enjoyable than I thought it would be. AGI literature is so sparse and vague within itself that it's almost impossible even to begin to evaluate the debate. Every debate seems to go in a revolving door of what AGI even means, with that definition seemingly changing almost every round. Is it conscious? Is it “God”? Is it just intelligence put into a humanoid figure? Is it even an “upgrade” at all? All of these are things I have heard in rounds defining AGI. So when you have all those competing definitions of AGI, it either takes up the entirety of the debate clash to argue what AGI even is, or debaters are making arguments when they have very different definitions of AGI, so their arguments don't even begin to clash with one another, and then the debate becomes a mess. This is also from someone who has spent considerable time on this topic. I can only imagine the mess of a debate; this is to evaluate someone who hasn't spent time on this topic or even a lay judge. This is not even to mention that I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to be evaluating competing pieces of evidence on a hypothetical topic where the substance that we are debating doesn't even exist, there is no “truth” for me to lean on in this topic.

With all that being said, I made a list of 3 things you could do that would make evaluating the debate around a lot easier and probably get you a win.

Definition of AGI - I'm usually not a big fan of reading definitions unless absolutely necessary. But this feels an imperative to have in constructive it basically sets the groundwork for the whole debate and it clearly tells me what I'm supposed to be evaluating.

Good warrants for evidence comparison - You should probably have very good warrants for competing evidence claims If you put me in a position where I have to read cards about a specific issue pertaining to AGI at the end of the round and you haven't given me warrants for why your evidence is good or preferable to your opponents you're basically leaving yourself open to a 50/50 coin toss. Like I previously stated, the AGI hypothesis and research are all over the place. There is very little consensus on anything; thus, evaluating evidence is going to be difficult, so I need warrants for why your stuff is good.

Crystalize BETTER

For a 45-minute LD round, debaters on this topic are going for way too much offense in their final speeches, which is definitely contributing to a mess of a flow. You don't need to make it that difficult for yourself. Tell me why you're winning framework and what piece of offense you're winning that specifically links to your framework. Better yet, if you think you're losing framework, tell me why you linked into your opponent's framework and what piece of offense you're winning. Remember, evaluation starts at the top level on framework; whoever can generate the most offense through the winning framework will win the round. Usually, just one winning piece of offense is enough for that. The 1NR and 2AR should be concerned with extending their framework and winning offense. An extension of some defense is nice, but offense wins rounds.

PFD

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem, specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get paraphrasing evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down.

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystallize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with topic-related jargon.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I won't vote on death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

27.5-27.9 - lost the debate and didn't do well

28-28.5 - you either won or lost but did okay

28.6 - 28.9 - you won and did well

29-29.5 - you did won, did great, will probably make it to elims

29.6-30 - you won and will probably win the tournament.

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author". I'm so sick of watching debates where both teams just say "they dropped this so extend it" - what is "it/that"? I will cap your speaks at 27.9 if you do this.

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission or generic topic related links. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't evaluate it. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that. I also think that teams need to clash more on standards and impacts.

Theory - if you go for it, do impact calc and contextualize it to the debate. I will not be convinced by pre-written blocks unless somehow the other team fumbles that badly.

Misc. - I really care about clash heavy debates, if it feels like both teams are just passing by each other without clash, I will be visibly annoyed and not giving anyone good speaks regardless of win loss. 2nr cards and 2ar cards are RARELY justified, I prefer not to deal with them.

Hello everyone, :) I did policy debate for four years in high school, so I understand this world from both a judge's POV and a debater's POV. I enjoy all styles of debate as long as you can explain your arguments well and keep the arguments organized. I will not tell you what to run and what not to run. I'm not going to flow your arguments through the round if they are not brought up again and I will consider them as dropped. Please try YOUR best to keep the round flowable and organized. At the end of the day, you are there to persuade me and I will vote for whoever does that best (with the exception of dropped arguments).

Spreading:I don't necessarily enjoy extremely fast spreading but I won't ask you to slow down for me. If you're going to spread, it needs to be clear and concise.

T andTheory: I enjoy T debates and theory arguments. I understand them well and if there is a good reason to bring up topicality or a theory argument then I encourage you to do so. If you bring up topicality, your standards and voters will sway me, not the definition. I will prefer the definition with the best standards and voters.

Kritiks: I love a good K debate, but I think the K should be coherent and linkable. If the K doesn't have a strong link, I won't vote for it. I don't discriminate against K-Affs so if you want to run it, do it.

Please introduce yourselves and tell me your school and speaker positions before the round!

First of all, I'm what I'd consider an experienced lay judge, so if you speak too fast and lose me, you're in trouble. My daughter debated 4 years at Lawrence High and is now president of the Kansas State debate team, so I'm not completely inexperienced, but I'm not an expert by any means. I try to flow as best I can, so be clear and signpost and give me your analytics. I'm a Truth over Tech judge.

Please add me to your email chain: amyjsand @ gmail.com (or if you do speech drop please give me the code)

I like soft left impacts I can understand like racism, but since I work as an accountant... I really like policy impact, especially economic. Give me some good impact calc!

If you think you are winning an argument, explain to me WHY you are winning. It's especially helpful if you can explain things to me in an innovative way, it shows me that you really understand and believe in your argument.

The main thing for me? Don't be rude. I enjoy judging debate and I like hearing a good argument. Convince me you're right, make me think, and make my decision difficult. Good luck and most of all have fun!

Caitlin Sand, any pronouns

Debated for four years at Lawrence High in Kansas (Some local circuit, some natcirc) and currently debate for K-State (Ask me about KSU debate!!)

2024 CEDA Triple Octafinalist

Environmental science major and women and gender studies minor

Add me to the email chain: caitlinmsand@gmail.com

There are many debaters, judges, and coaches who influence my philosophy every day to the point that I can't credit them all, but all my love goes to my coach, Hannah Phelps. She is amazing, and if you run/are interested in Disability studies, you need to thank her and show her some love for the work she has done/is doing.

( ˘͈ ᵕ ˘͈♡)

Top-level:

IMPORTANT: I have an auditory processing disorder. Don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it. I'll slow you a few times, but if it becomes a problem, I'll stop flowing. "Can I spread the card and not the tags?" No. Unless the body of the card/warrants doesn't matter, but in that case just don't read the cards and read analytics. I love this activity, and I love giving feedback so don't just nuke my prefs because you don't want to slow down. In fact, I think you should get used to slowing down because there are many people, not just me, who can't understand spreading and who are competitive within debate. If my opponents can slow down for me, you can too. If you somehow ignore all of this and decide to spread--PLEASE send out analytics. PS- if you're someone who doesn't like spreading but feels like they need to do it in order to be a good debater pls, talk to me. I'm here for you and know you are not alone <333

HS- I DO NOT KNOW THIS TOPIC; also I'm very busy with my own debate career, so I do not judge often (sorry)

Can I run x thing? Yes. I really don't care. You do you. It's probably better that you read what you are comfortable with because that will help both of us understand what's going on in the round. I don't believe that judges naturally get rid of all preconceived notions going into debate but know that I try my hardest to make sure you are listened to and that I am adjudicating the round fairly. Just do some judge instructions and tell me what my ballot does and I'll be happy.

Tech vs Truth. I don't even know anymore. I'd like to say I evaluate debates on a technical level, but if both teams are winning something on a tech level without certain judge instructions, I'll probably break the tie through the truth. Generally specific links > generic links; however, a good 2a/2n spin is also just fine with me. 99% of the time, I'm not going to go back and read evidence 1. I think it's your job to tell me what that ev says 2. I think it makes my job as a fair adjudicator harder and starts to dip into judge intervention territory 3. The only exception to this is if that's what the debate comes down to

Evidence: Read fewer cards. I trust that you are smart people who can come up with your own arguments without having an author for every one of them. Also just helps me evaluate the debate better if I'm not forced to listen to shadow extensions of authors I've never heard of. However, if you present to me a clipping/evidence violation, I will be forced to stop the debate and end it there. I'm not going to mess around with the rules on that. "Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me." -Alex McVey (My head coach)

I'm probably going to be really uncomfortable if you post round/argue with me. Listen, we're all human, and we all make mistakes, including me. If you thought I evaluated something wrong or missed something, feel free to shoot me an email (I will probably not respond, however). Debate isn't a science, which imo is what makes it fun, so for both of our sakes, let's just accept the decision and move on.

Discrimination, harassment, or generally being mean results in an automatic loss. Do not read any arguments containing graphic descriptions of violence against queer people and sexual violence.

If there is something outside the round that is making you uncomfortable (debating an abuser, being harassed before the round/the tournament, being harmed by your partner/coach, etc), please come and talk to me, and I will fight for you. I will do whatever it takes to work the situation out with Tabroom because this activity is supposed to be fun.

Speaks:

I kinda just go off of vibes. I would say I average around 28.5.

Aff:

I'm tired of poor internal link stories. Like seriously, policy affs get better at explaining how, without the aff, we get to nuclear war/extinction. I've noticed this general trend of just asserting that it happens without any explanation as to why. Also, Rip to solvency cards that aren't just a sentence long would like to see that make a comeback.

K Affs:

I don't really care about whether or not you have a tie to the topic. Please tell me what my ballot does and what sort of method/epistemological shift is happening. I also think debaters are slowly losing the meaning of what it means to be "material." I think K affs should be a lot better at just stating why their rhetoric/performance/movement being introduced into the debate space is a material act. That being said, though, I think the best presumption argument I hear is why is it good for the aff to be debated/why I should judge it. In the same thinking why is my ballot important to your rhetoric/performance/movement? Also, along the same lines as my policy aff opinions, PLEASE don't just pull together five random K cards and call that a 1AC. Tell me how the different parts of the aff interact with one another and how you reach your method. Without a defense of this, I will be much more persuaded by aff condo bad/presumption on this question.

For neg teams against k affs: see my opinion above. I love a good presumption debate. I lean towards the side of the fence that it's not violent to question aff construction, materiality, debatability, etc. I'd love a 2nr of just presumption, which I've definitely gone for as a 2n. Rip to case debate that isn't just the same recycled Ritter 13 card. I don't think you necessarily have to have a bunch of academy/cap/debate bad cards on this question but rather show me that you've thought about the 1AC and how it functions.

Policy:

Please give me judge instruction/impact calc. I haven't touched a DA in years so like don't assume I know the intricacies of your argument. I will evaluate it in the most tech way I understand, but please give me a top-level overview/understanding of how I should evaluate certain arguments. Genuinely good judge instruction will outweigh line-by-line debating here because of my lack of understanding of the intricacies of your argument.

T/FW/Theory

I will vote on a procedural if the event happened in the round but I am uncomfortable adjudicating things that happened outside the debate. Unless it is genuinely violent and you need to stop the round please don't make me have to look at screenshots and decide if someone should be canceled. That being said teams need to be going for in-round procedurals MUCH more. The team read a sus card that said something racist? New sheet and vote them down. The team violated an accommodation request? New sheet and vote them down. In my experience, I've learned that procedurals are not always personal but can be used as a learning experience for why someone shouldn't do something again.

Theory is fine just give me judge instruction and use it as framing for why x thing happened or matters. However, I am more likely than most to vote on condo since I dislike teams that run 8 off and then go for the one the aff dropped- it's abusive. At the same time there is some leeway on the condo debate 1. If someone is running like one K and T, I'm going to be less persuaded by your traditional condo args 2. That being said, I love condo args that are specific to K debate/your lit base. For example, If you read anti-blackness or ableism, explain to me why condo is anti-black or ableist, and I'll be much more persuaded by the traditional condo standards.

I don't really have an opinion on t/fw vs k affs I just really hate when it's an excuse to not engage with any other part of the aff. Fairness is less persuasive to me than education because I don't think debate is structurally fair. I think affs should be utilizing impact turns more rather than reading so much defense to particular internal links such as ground or clash. I love a creative TVA; from my time reading a k aff, my favorites have been: The United States should bomb Autism Speaks, and The United States should disarm with an advantage about how it hurts sharks (shark memes included in the TVA). Not arguing that those particular TVAs are good but rather show that time was spent thinking about and engaging the aff.

Ks:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about and engaging with critical literature. That being said, I will not be happy with Ks that are run when you don't understand what you are talking about because, most likely, I won't know either. Generally, I think you should be winning framework to win the rest of the K debate. However, my threshold for aff framework arguments is a lot higher since there seems to just be a trend of top-level assertion that mooting the 1AC is bad without any other warrants. Neg teams, please explain why your framework DAs/args interact with the affs standards, or else I'm not going to be happy trying to intervene in that debate. I'm definitely persuaded by Fiat bad. Aff teams, I don't think you should be arguing that Fiat is real but rather gives us good education because you don't want to let me decide between a Fiat real/not real debate (I will default neg on this question). Aff teams, please defend your reps as defense to framework. Neg teams, please stop letting aff teams get away with saying weigh the consequences of the plan when their plan triggers the K link. Generic links are okay as long as its articulated well and still apply. Alt's need to be articulated well- EXPLAIN the alt pls!! Aff teams, please stop letting the neg run away with whatever they want on the alt because some of the alts don't make any sense or can't solve. Ks without alts are okay as long as you articulate the links as case turns, but please do that as a last case 2nr option, not right away in the 1nc.

The role of the ballot and the role of the judge is incredibly important!!

K lit I'm most familiar (in this order) with disability/ableism, set col, imperialism, queer theory, abolition, and cap.

(◍•ᴗ•◍)♡ ✧*。

Email: bradleyschrock@ku.edu

I know nothing about this topic so you'll have to bear with me sorry everybody!

I did debate at Lawrence high for 4 years, rumor has it that I may have even won a tournament one time and was probably part of one of the most okay KDC teams LHS ever had. I can hopefully still flow alright so as long as you aren't super fast we'll probably be okay.

I've copied the relevant portions of my old paradigm below but I will reiterate that you probably shouldn't run a K unless it's very simple.

Okay also one last thing if you're doing something tricky to try to trip up the other team remember that I am probably also going to be confused and/or annoyed (not giving out speech docs, reading your tags weird, if you have to ask don't do it). Like everything there's probably a line but I think you should be nice in debates is all.

- tech>truth (this is probably mostly true I just said it because everyone else does)

-CPs need a text (in the doc please) and I think perms do too (I'll still listen to it if it doesn't have a text but I think it's annoying and bad). This is primarily so that everyone has one set statement to go back to when debating about the logistics of perms and CPs later in the round, it holds each team to an advocacy position.

-If your disad doesn't have an impact I don't care about it.

-If you're running a k we probably both don't understand what's going on.

-I won't do extension work for you because I don't debate anymore that means I don't have to and you are therefore cursed with that burden. This means that I will vote on arguments that might have been weak but went unanswered. EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS

-As someone that ran lots of sneaky affs that were usually effects or extratopical, I usually have sort of a high bar for these to be really that abusive. They definitely can be but you'll have to convince me more than just saying that they are.

Emma Schroeder

Washburn Rural High School ’20

I am now a social studies teacher and assistant debate coach at Washburn Rural

Put me on the email chain - ekathschroeder@gmail.com

TLDR - I am most comfortable in a policy-orientated debate. If you want to go for anything different, be ready to over-explain. Be nice, be smart, be clear and we should have a good time

----------

Top Level

You should know that even though I am an assistant coach, I haven't actually researched a debate topic since I was in high school. If I look confused you need to warrant things out more. Please don't make me google

Please. Do. Judge Instruction. If your rebuttal doesn't make some sort of claim like "if we win x argument we win the debate" then you have not done your rebuttal correctly

Tech v truth - Evidence quality and credibility is very important, and I will reward you for good research and for being ahead on the flow. But! Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Your “card” doesn’t count as tech if it’s unintelligibly highlighted. I think people need to stop assuming that terrible arguments necessitate a response. I have a lot of respect for 2ACs that *correctly* identify a nonsense arg, make a handful of smart analytics, and move on

Speed - Stop screaming into your laptops. Dear god. I usually flow on paper. I promise you I can flow, but if you don't explain your argument out long enough for me to physically move my pen then it probably isn't a real argument anyway.Topicality, framework, and other theory blocks need to be slowed down. I often have very physical signs of agreement or confusion with arguments. If you cannot slow down enough to look for these signs while speaking then why are you in a communication activity? Stop sacrificing line by line for reading blocks. It's soooo boring to judge and I promise you that you sound better when you are not just robotically reading

Bigotry in any way will not be tolerated. If it becomes an issue in round, it will result in a loss

----------

Things I like - 8 min of case in the 2NC, no laptops in the 2NR/2AR, impact calc, ballot framing, baller cross-ex strategies, unabashedly slow yet efficient debaters, persuasion, rehighlighted evidence, debaters who are funny/having a good time

Things I don’t like - general rudeness, 10 off in the 1NC (why do u need to do dis), stealing prep, clipping, death good, bad highlighting (see above rant), saying “X was conceded!!!” when it really wasn’t

----------

Case - **heart eyes emoji** The more case debate you do, the happier I become. Two good case cards > your extra shitty DA. I have never had the opportunity to vote on presumption but would absolutely love to. If you give me this opportunity I will gladly reward you, either with the ballot or with good speaks.

Counterplans - Will vote for conditions/consult/process/PICs but probably won’t be thrilled about it. Conditionality is probably good, but I get annoyed judging 9 off debates that suck when it could have been a 5 off debate that was good. I go back and forth about my philosophy regarding judge kick, so addressing it directly in the debate is safest for you. I would like a solvency advocate unless you’re getting incredibly creative. Will be responsive to theory if every solvency deficit is being fiated through. Delay = cheating.

Topicality - probably my favorite argument although it’s hard to do correctly. Debaters should think of T debates like they’re debating a DA. 1 standard = 1 DA. Pick one for the 2NR, otherwise there's too many moving parts and your impact won't be explained. It is rare to see a terminal impact explained to T, you should have one. It's try or die for *your impact* baby. Arguments should be framed in the context of what the current topic looks like and how it would change. In general: Precision > Limits > Ground > Topic Education. Also, if you put a 15 second ASPEC blip at the bottom of your T shell, there’s a 100% chance I will ignore it. Put it on a separate sheet.

Kritiks - If it tells you anything, when I was a senior I did not read a K in the 1NC a single time. But if you want to, go for it and be prepared to explain! There are so many moments when I judge K debates where I think to myself "I have 0 idea what this means" and its not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that your speech does not go beyond the use of buzzwords. Using a big word is not and will never be a sufficient warrant. The FW and links 2NRs are most successful because alts are always bad imo. Unless you are very good I will probably weigh the aff. Saying fiat is illusory doesn’t mean anything to me. Long overviews are a sign that you’re not putting in enough effort to engage with the line-by-line.

Framework - I am a bad person to read a planless aff in front of. But if you must, I believe affs need to have some form of topic link. Fairness is the most persuasive impact to me. I don’t think going to the actual case page in the 2NR is always necessary, but the arguments need to be contextualized to the 1AC. Neg teams are generally good at talking about their impacts but need to do more work on the internal link level.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Yes email chain (I prefer Speechdrop if it's all the same but good with whatever) -eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. That is more of a statement of experience than philosophy; I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, I am likely to struggle to understand how you justify an affirmative ballot.

3) Debate is an oral activity. While I will want your speech docs, I flow based on what I hear. If I don't hear it, I will not fill in my flow later based on what you send.

4) I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed. (See below for my detailed approach to clipping.)

5) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement.

6) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. I don't generally believe in a conditional 2NR.

7) Flow the debate, not the speech doc. Very little moves my speaker point calculation down faster than debaters responding to arguments that were not made in the debate.

8) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please. If you fly through a theory block at maximum evidence speed, it probably won't all make it onto my flow.

9) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. While I can explain to my students a more modern offense-defense framework, I do still largely view T as a true-false question.

10) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

11) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

12) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

Clipping Policy

Clipping - Representing, through sending a speech doc or other means, that you have read evidence which was not read in the round. If evidence is highlighted, skipping any un-highlighted words is clipping; if evidence is not highlighted, skipping any un-underlined words is clipping. Verbal indications to "cut" or "mark" a card are acceptable indications that you have chosen not to read all of a particular card in the doc, and you should be prepared to provide a marked version of your speech to your opponents if requested.

Clipping continues to be a major issue in our activity. You are welcome to make a formal challenge, and if you do so, the relevant KSHSAA/NSDA/etc rules will control rather than my personal approach, which is:

1) If you clip a card, I will make my decision as though you did not read that card at all. It will be removed from my flow.

2) If you, as a team, clip four or more cards, you will lose my ballot on poor evidence ethics without the need for a formal challenge.

3) If both teams in a debate violate #2, I will decide the debate as normal based on any un-clipped cards from both sides.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence (i.e., paraphrasing) is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged a lot of debates on the topic.

How I judge. A lot of judges are absolutely tech over everything. I think there is a lot of value to that judging philosophy (it's logically consistent, it results in decisions which feel more objective and fair) BUT that is not how I have ever thought about debate. I think of myself as tech over truth, but to me, that phrase means that I will flow the debate and make a decision based on the arguments in the final rebuttals, as long as those arguments were present earlier in the debate. That does not mean that I will ignore things like argument and evidence quality when I'm comparing two competing claims. I think every judge has biases related to argument quality and I will try to use this paradigm to be transparent about those biases.

One of my biggest biases is against process counterplans. If technical execution and evidence quality is even close to close, I will try to vote aff in these debates. I am a great judge for "perm do both solves the net benefit," "perm do the counterplan (as long as you counter-define neg definitions)," the limited intrinsic perm, or theory. I honestly think these types of counterplans promote lazy debating, discourage topic research, and represent a big barrier to entry for less experienced coaches and programs. I understand the line between a process CP and a topic-related CP which demonstrates an opportunity cost to doing the plan can be hazy, but if any of your competition arguments are based off of certainty, immediacy, or "the butterfly effect," I am probably not your ideal judge.

Another of my biggest biases is against planless affirmatives. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments made in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read. That said, I should probably be lower on your pref sheet if you choose to read a planless affirmative. The arguments that fairness, clash, and education are unimportant make very little sense to me. Debate seems inevitably competitive. Now, I think I am a fine judge for teams who interpret the resolution in creative ways and argue that a counter-model of debate is more fair and educational. I also think teams should be held accountable for what they say in debates, but reading topicality or answering the wrong theory of power are not microaggressions.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I flow on my computer in an excel spreadsheet BUT I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument. I am very comfortable giving decisions where I say "if you wanted me to vote on that blip, you should have emphasized it more in your speech" or "I didn't read that card because I couldn't understand you when you read it." I will tell you to be clearer during your speech if it becomes an issue.

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. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

I am extremely anti-prompting/"parroting" your partner. Past the first time, I will not flow any argument that a person not giving the speech prompts the speaker to make. I think that's the most fair way I can discourage the practice.

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.

You're welcome to ask me questions after the debate or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

nargissuleman3@gmail.com

debating at ku '27

this is an activity that takes an insane amount of time and effort, so congratulations on all your hard work. that being said, i would say that my debate background is largely critical, and i have spent a majority of my time reading/debating anti blackness, afropess, set col, militarism, etc. for me, warranted analysis, properly extended arguments, and clear judge instruction are most definitely the way to get my ballot. know that my background is not the extent of my comfortability with your preferred argumentation.

yes, judge adaptation, but most importantly, read what you are comfortable with in front of me. i have judged and coached a variety of teams with varying styles of debate so i promise whatever you read i gotchu.

k affs

i think that your aff should have at least some connection to the topic, or a thorough reason as to why it shouldn't. if your aff is performative, don't let it get lost after the 1AC, especially if its tied to whatever method you are advocating for. i think that the easiest way to get my ballot is rob/roj. if at the end of the debate i am left feeling confused as to what your relationship to the ballot is, and why your model OR this debate uniquely is significant and outweighs the other impacts in the debate, then it is going to be difficult for me to vote for you in this situation. for fw, competing interpretations are the best way to go. i am largely of the belief that if you have kritiked a set of research practices/models/wording of the topic, you should propose an alternative to those structures. that being said, this may not be the best method for every aff, and i would advocate for this being something you consider as you construct your 1ACs in the first place, because i do also think impact turns are good, but no necessarily for every aff.

fw v k affs

if you are able to discuss why your model of debate is inclusive and allows for multiple points of education to be accessed including the aff's, you are automatically in a good position in these types of debates. i think that clash is always a better impact than fairness, and i find most fairness debates to be quite shallow - but u do u ig. fw makes the debate about models, so defend to me why your model is good/why debate under your model is more desirable, and im voting neg. i think the tva is probably better than ssd arguments. remember the tva doesnt have to solve for the entirety of the aff's impacts, BUT prove that the affs model of debate is accessible while being topical.

k v k affs

i think that these are some of the most exciting debates to judge/participate in, and i really appreciate the increasing creativity in these types of debate. this is a question of competing methods and at the end of the debate i should know why the negs/affs method is preferable and thorough impact calc is crucial. the aff probably gets a permutation here, BUT the net benefit(s) need to be gas and i should believe that without the aff, the disads are triggered. i love link turns in these kinds of debates and think they are super strategic. for the negative, clearly articulating why the aff can't overcome the link and why the aff links to the net benefit, make it very difficult for the aff to win the perm.

policy v k

fw is so insanely important in these debates. most of the time believe that the aff should get to weigh the consequences of the plan against a competitive alternative. the most strategic position for you is LINK TURNNNN and disads to the alt. additionally, permutations are good and i dont think you need to be spam reading 7 of them in the 1AR but a few are strategic. i think that a lot of Ks dont have unique links and links are usually just towards the status quo. dont get caught up in a bunch of jargon and lose the basis of what ur trying to say.

k v policy

link specificity is good. if the alternative isnt able to overcome the links then i think you are put in a difficult position. the fw debate should provide reasons as to why your interpretation of what debates look like are good for both teams in this round/or a good model for debates to operate under. best argumentation to the perm is why the aff links to the net benefit/disads to the permutation obviously. my familiarity with varying Ks are in the o/v of my paradigm. yes you still should take case in the 2NR imo, but obviously not necessary in every debate.

public forum debate

• im fine for theory
• im not persuaded by liars or people who get caught lying regarding theory debates and then double down or just try. to say."but we all liars"

random thoughts

• you probably going to lose a debate against a k-aff with no case in the 2NR
• do not defend israel as a good hegemonic power and/or aid to israel in front of me. find somewhere else to defend genocide!
• debate is a site of education and idea cultivation. do not ruin that for anyone else with racism, sexism, islamaphobia, transphobia, other -isms etc.
• yes read at whatever speed you want but if you start spitting everywhere and acting like u about to take ur last breath....please.
• include a soccer reference/joke and i will boost your speaks 0.1-0.3 depending on how hard i laugh.

I have been involved with debate since 1981. Mostly, I don't want to do the work for either team. I will try very hard to avoid intervention unless you are just really rude and unprofessional. I tend to vote for the team that best narrates my ballot. I tend to look for the easy way to decide (think dropped args. etc.).

I would tell you to do what you do best rather than try to adapt to what you THINK I want to hear. I have voted on K's and generics and will do so when won. I rarely vote on T but will vote on a dropped T arg since that is easy. Just make your T position reasonable. T USFG is different when run well against K affs.

Please spend some time on the role of the ballot/framework. I tend to let those positions guide me in close rounds.

Prompting should be extremely limited and I won't flow if your partner is feeding you more than a word or two. I have had rounds where prompting was almost an entire rebuttal and you won't win the round if that is happening.

I should not have to read the unhighlighted portions of your evidence to figure out what your are arguing. If you have to cut that much out to get everything in, you are likely trying to do more in the round than I can follow anyway.

If you tend to just number your argument instead of calling them what you want me to flow, how do you expect me to understand what you are talking about? You should care a great deal about how easy it is for me to flow your arguments by the way you structure your documents and the clarity of your tags.

I want a marked copy (what you actually read).

Speed is not usually an issue if you are clear and your speech doc is good. Questions? Just ask.

Email: lswanonhs@gmail.com

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

Updated 4/15/25

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS) and now debate with K-State. If you want to learn more about K-State debate or K-State Camp, feel free to reach out! or check out the following links:

Debate

Debate Camps and Clinics

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in policy debate

Top 10 @ state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in pf, info, extemp.

Debate

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 9/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. I will almost always default tech > truth, meaning I will listen to any argument you present to me, if it comes down to it refer to how I would vote on specifics.

T/Theory:

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you actually EXPLAIN them.

NEG - I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T/FW:

One of my favorite debates. Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best. I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

NEG: For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. While I think it is the best strategy for the negative, it doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or things you can read. I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - For the aff, I like counter-interps, Impact Turns and DAs. Again, just because I like them doesn't mean it's the only arg you can read. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

DAs:

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.Do impact calc, the earlier the better.

NEG - I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action.

AFF - I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans:

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and International fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

NEG - I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve.

AFF - I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

As a 2A my literature knowledge is very specific to orientalism however I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are fem, cap, security, and obviously orientalism. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

NEG - I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework, and they don't read 'we meet' doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that.

AFF - I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic in some way. Refer to my K lit base above to know where I stand on some lit.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

NEG - I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy.

AFF - I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! :)

Updated 4/15/25

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS) and now debate with K-State. If you want to learn more about K-State debate or K-State Camp, feel free to reach out! or check out the following links:

Debate

Debate Camps and Clinics

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in policy debate

Top 10 @ state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in pf, info, extemp.

Debate

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 9/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. I will almost always default tech > truth, meaning I will listen to any argument you present to me, if it comes down to it refer to how I would vote on specifics.

T/Theory:

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you actually EXPLAIN them.

NEG - I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T/FW:

One of my favorite debates. Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best. I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

NEG: For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. While I think it is the best strategy for the negative, it doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or things you can read. I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - For the aff, I like counter-interps, Impact Turns and DAs. Again, just because I like them doesn't mean it's the only arg you can read. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

DAs:

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.Do impact calc, the earlier the better.

NEG - I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action.

AFF - I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans:

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and International fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

NEG - I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve.

AFF - I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

As a 2A my literature knowledge is very specific to orientalism however I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are fem, cap, security, and obviously orientalism. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

NEG - I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework, and they don't read 'we meet' doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that.

AFF - I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic in some way. Refer to my K lit base above to know where I stand on some lit.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

NEG - I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy.

AFF - I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! :)

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

I’m studying math and environmental engineering. I don’t know much about intellectual property.

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. Cross ex about things that will be relevant to the 2NR and 2AR.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Perm double bind makes a lot of sense to me. The negative needs a reason why the plan and alt are mutually exclusive, a reason why the inclusion of the plan makes the alt insolvent, or framework offense the perm can’t resolve (this is your best bet).

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. I will subconsciously judge you need for bad formatting.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

I'm a parent Judge, I have had three kids do forensics. I've judged several tournaments before, but I am more versed in speech/interp than debate.

I enjoy judging debate when it is laid out for me well. I will vote on any arguments as long as you explain them to me. Don't be mean or condescending :(

My daughter says:

low tech

lib hippie

she can kind flow

add her to the email chain anjawoolverton@gmail.com

Debated at Okemos High School: 2016-2020

Debated at KU: 2020-2022

Coached at Blue Valley, KS High Schoo:l 2022-2024

Assistant coaching at Binghamton: 2024-Present

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; pomo/gender/race theory and or sexual orientation/ablism

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this years topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

If you are running a non-evidence based strategy YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY IT.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.