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

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

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

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

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

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

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

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

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

I'll make this relatively short:

I'll vote on about anything

OFF:

Framing must be explained and given in the 1AC or 1NC.

DA: need to have link-level. I tend to prefer "real world" impacts over existential impacts, Uniqueness is not required for linear disadvantages and shouldn't be your only a/t.

CP: have to have a net benefit over the AFF and be mutually exclusive to be a voter. No multiple worlds theory.

Topicality and Theory: need standards and voters along with proven abuse to be a voter. Condo theory won't be a voter unless the CP is actually dropped proving abuse. Specification arguments need a reason for being weighed such as no enforcement or funding stops solvency.

K: I would prefer framing to be brought up in the 1NC along with impact and alt. The alt should be the main voter of the K and is what I'll vote on.

ON:

Inherency: Inherency in most cases is implied and is not specifically required in the 1ac for me.

Solvency: Aff solvency is guaranteed unless contested in round.

Adv: I would like impact calc at some point in the round to weigh the impacts of the world of the aff vs. neg.

Should be about all, if you have any other questions ask me.

Update June 13, 2024.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I am the debate, forensics and speech teacher and coach at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.

In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.

Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.

Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!

POLICY (CX) DEBATE

I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.

Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.

Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!

PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE

Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE

If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP

Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS

I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stock Issues

Kansas Wesleyan University Director of Debate and Forensics

Current Coach: I have several Private Coaching and Tutoring students in speech and debate :) But I'm a principal at McPherson HS now.

Former Coach: Salina South HS, Abilene HS, El Dorado HS, Buhler HS

College Competitor: NPDA and NFA LD

High School Policy 4 Years (I debated in the glory days of Champ Division. I’m getting old.)

I'm just going to say this up top: Flowing is literally the most important skill in debate. If you think you don't need to flow, or that a speech doc is a replacement for flowing you are wrong. If I'm flowing (and I will be) you should be too. A speech doc is not a replacement for a flow and often means that you miss valuable line by line analysis, logical arguments, theory, and can answer cards that weren't read into the round.

I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round. (That means speed is fine in most cases. You will know if I can't understand you or can’t keep up. I’ll put my pen down. You may want to look up and check if you’re real speedy or at least have your partner check.)

I’m a fan of following the line by line, so you should tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and more importantly tell me why it matters (Impact Calc).I believe in the Toulmin model of argumentation and think that your evidence should matter and be of good quality with data and warrants and you should be able to articulate that information. Extending Claims or Tags isn’t enough to win an argument. Blocks are cool, but you should make an effort to directly clash with your opponents blocks as well. I also think that you should have an in round vision and that you and your partner should work to ensure that vision flows through the round to the end and that I get a completed picture at the end.

I'm not predisposed to certain types of arguments in a round as liking/disliking them more than others so I will try to listen with an open mind to the arguments that you make. You should also probably not make the decision to drastically alter your style or what you do in round based on my paradigm. I want to see what you do well, how you do it, not what you think I want to see or something you aren’t comfortable with.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

Framework:This is important. You need to give me a frame for the round and win that debate or I will more than likely default to policy maker. However, do not attempt to frame the debate in way that eliminates nearly all ground for one side of the debate. I probably believe that ground should be equitable and predictable for both aff and neg.

Theory:I will listen to it. I will weigh it. Tell me why it matters and have clear demonstrable abuse. Be able to articulate the impact and why Theory matters. I also think that to win a theory debate you probably have to give me more than fragment or single sentence. I need an argument and time to write it down, and if you think it’s important enough to merit a ballot, then I expect you to spend some time on the argument.

Topicality:I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. Too many teams use it as part of a game with little strategic value or execution. A good T debate is a thing of beauty. I can default to competing interps or reasonability and be convinced either way depending on the debate, but I likely default to competing interps unless I have clearly articulated reasons not to. Please do work on the Standards/Voter level. And for the love of debate, if you are winning this argument and the aff isn’t topical please go for T in the 2NR…

Counterplans:I think they are strategic. I'm good with Topical CP's, Advantage Cp's, Smart PIC’s, Multiple CPs, etc. Delay Cp’s aren’t my favorite, but you can win that debate. I probably believe that all arguments are at the core conditional, but I will listen to debate on Status Theory and evaluate what happens in the round. I prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s and I don’t think that CP solves better is a net benefit.

Kritiks:Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team.I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And smart analysis of evidence.

What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time. 3. Don’t Clip Cards.

POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

• Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

• Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech

• Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech

• Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win

• If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped

CROSS-EX:

• Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you

• Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building

• While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote

• Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements

HARMS:

• Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO

• I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.

• Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.

INHERENCY:

• Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO

• Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear

• If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that

• Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is

SOLVENCY:

• Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label

• Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX

• DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card

ADVANTAGES:

• I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.

• Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance

• Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so

PLAN:

• I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.

• I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague

• Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX

TOPICALITY:

• I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

• Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it

DISADVANTAGES:

• I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs

• Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence

• Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

• Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target

• Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole

COUNTERPLANS:

• PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something

• Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round

• Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job

KRITIKS:

• I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not

• I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution

• Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

• Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found

• Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend

• Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

If you have any questions email me: samuel.houston915@gmail.com

This will be a very long paradigm. Just debate how you would normally debate and it will work out best for you. if you don't understand anything in this paradigm just ask me to clarify.

General paradigm: I'm tab default gameplayer. I will vote for literally anything that you tell me to vote for. I have experience in both KDC and DCI styles of debate. I like both of them and you can run both of them without worrying about me, not understanding.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading, but if the other team specifically asks you do not spread and you ignore the request. It will affect how I vote for you in the round. It's also just kind of a jerk move... so don't.

Speaks: There are a number of ways in which you can raise and secure speaks. The most obvious way is to make fun anecdotes and jokes during your speech. I have a terrible attention span so if you can make it more interesting I will probably pay more attention to your speech. Also, there seems to be a high-brow atmosphere around most debate rounds, and that kind of annoys me. So I really don't care if you swear, or if you talk like an actual human being.

Cross-examination: You can do either closed or open cx. I think both are fantastically fun, but it is annoying to me when people make arguments in cx so don't do that. in my opinion, cx is not binding, but if you make an abuse argument I'll listen to it.

General Pet Peeves: Here is a list of general pet peeves I have about debate. I in no way expect you to read or do all of these things.

• When people go way over time for speeches or cx
• if you make analytical arguments in a constructive and you don't put them on the doc.
• If you have said all you needed to say in the round but keep repeating the same thing over and over. I will not dock your speaks because you have thirty seconds left in your speech, please just sit down.
• when people claim they broke the rules in speech. When they very clearly did not.
• If you do not clearly roadmap and signpost
• if you do not label the DA/CP/K on the document, it takes literally 5 seconds to specify the DA. just do it.

Email: vlad.peters24@mcpherson.com

tldr: Game Is Game

For Novice. Just make me laugh and you'll win. For the love of god act like you somewhat want to be here or add any kind of personality. Please make me laugh by adding jokes.

First I'd like to start off by saying don't be jerks or disrespectful to anybody, It can and will become a voting issue. But you probably know that schpeel.

At heart I'm a gameplayer and will vote on whatever you tell me to vote in the round. If one team drops a piece of evidence and the other doesn't but egregiously lies about the evidence (pls dont lie about evidence) I will be forced to pref the wrong interp of the evidence as it is the only one in the round. To simplify my paradigm down it could more easily be "Game is game". Tell me what to vote on.

On topicality args, I am of the belief that you do not have to prove abuse in round for me to vote. If you prove that their plan is not functioning with what the resolution specifies and tell me to vote on it, I will vote on it. For example if a plan this year is deficit spending and you prove that deficit spending is not "fiscal redistribution", I do not care if you have case args too, I will not punish you for being good debaters and doing research. Of course I will also vote on abuse args. But I'm not a stickler about what is topical, if something is reasonably topical and its proven in round I will vote on it. If you can prove something is not resolutional I will probably vote on it.

On CP. CPs are legit and whatnot. I believe that you don't neccesarily need a net benefit if you can prove that your CP solves better than the plan (assuming there is no perm) idc I'll vote for it. Imma be real ill prolly never vote for a states cp, get good. Obviously if its uncontested or really well argued I'll vote on it. Once again, game is game. But usually its such a bad arg.

On DA. DAs are really the meat and potatoes of debate for me. I buy generic links if you convince me of a reason why they should apply. I believe the best way of beating a DA is going straight for a link, so if you prove you don't link nothing else matters on the DA flow. So if you clearly prove you don't link, I straight up no longer care about the rest of any of the args on the DA and you don't have to extend anything else on it if you really don't link. On the flip side if a really awful link is dropped on the DA, even if it doesn't apply I'm not gonna judge kick the link for you. Just extend the args reasonably and don't drop them. For the neg too you gotta extend everything on the DA flow for me to consider it. All things considered, I love me a good DA.

On K. I am not a super buff on Ks, Explain everything clearly on K. Treat me like a C student.That means for both sides. K lit can be very self indulgent and can pontificate for too long upon itself. It doesn't have to be in the 1NC but everywhere else explain all the args on the K and why I should be voting on them, although an explanation in the 1NC would be nice. This is one of the few times where (in a poor debate with no analytics, all debate should have analytics) just reading cards won't cut it on K. I'm not going to say you personally have to believe the K to run it, game is game. I am a big fan of utopia args, a lot of alts are all like "If you vote on this ballot, you'll save the world" I buy that kind of arg when the aff is acting as a policy maker, but not when the neg is using this ballot as a way to save the non post-fiat world. If you are going to say that my ballot will stop capitalism please make your alt actually have some kind of depth and steps that we would take to end capitalism. Not a big fan of "Change the space of debate" kind of alts, because god knows this ballot won't change a damn thing. But I'll still vote on it if argued properly. At heart I believe we should be here to debate the res, and if the best way of ending societal harm is taking down capitalism, so be it. But some Ks just get ridiculous, I'll still vote for them but may err aff when the ENTIRE round comes down to a queer desire K. But once again refer to the quote that has been repeated. Game is game.

On T for K affs. I believe K affs should be somewhat within the space of the resolution to provide predictable ground for the neg, once again debate is a game that should be able to be played by both sides. So if you run T as the neg ofc the aff doesn't have to be traditionally topical like a non K aff. But when you run T give me some kind of DA or impact to the loss of reasonable ground by the neg to be able to play the game of debate on an equal ground with the aff. I do not care how awesome you believe your K aff is, the neg should be able to debate too and blindsiding them with something that has nothing to do with the rez is an arg. Be real, you're not going to change the world with your K aff, I will vote for it, but you won't change the world. So the neg should have ground to debate your aff.

Debate at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).

I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)

If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.

My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

Policy arguments are fine by me.

Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.

Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.

Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.

With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm mostly a Tab judge (Tell me who and what to vote on). I vote on performance style and speaking style. While the content of the debate is still important I like more Forensics style and IRL Speaker style aka I like clear and concise Argumentation. DO NOT SPEED READ. I am a 3rd year debater with Dyslexia so if your fast I can understand to some extent but if you talk to fast you lose me. So road mapping, sign posting is a must, explain arguments to me!