I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

Fine with most arguments. K's are fine, just make sure to explain them.

I dislike dropped arguments. If you intentionally drop an argument. Mention it.

I default to Stock Issues, Aff must win all Arguments to win unless I am presented with different framework.

Not the fastest at flowing so i prefer no spreading. that said you can still speak quickly but i have to have enough time to write it down

Any other clarifications or questions you have you can ask me before the round but I am generally pretty cool w/ whatever.

Flay judge

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

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

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

assistant director of debate, wichita east high school

nsda Degree of Outstanding Distinction certificate holder

he/him

say lets get this bread before cross-x for bonus points

lots of clash in your speech is always great, i think?

try your best

all good for open CX

if you use speachdrop, i will leave the round and submit the ballot in the other teams favor, i don't have time for this nonsense
just kidding (kind of), just use what's most convenient for you and the other team

incorporating any of these phrases into your speech will result in an increase of speaker points:

"devious licks, bruh moment, according to the KSHAA handbook..., perm do neither"

CONGRESS is the TRUE form of DEBATE ????

accomplishments:
parker benjamin mitchell's favorite student: 2021-2023

migillmolina@gmail.com

Coaching for Wichita East.

Third year student at Wichita State University, seven years in the activity. From Nae Edwards' paradigm: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

Obviously every judge comes into a debate with their own preconceptions about the activity. I'll do my best to ignore these and vote along the instruction I've been given in-round. I will reward debaters and teams who tell my how to vote and why.

Shameless plug: my band just released a new single, its fire, quietly stream it in-round + add it to a playlist for +0.2 speaks >:)

links to socials and streaming platforms:

https://linktr.ee/noservicehq

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

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

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

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

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

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is good or bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

Hi, I'm Sydnie VanArsdale I am a current college MUN (Model United Nations) delegate at Wichita State University and was previously one for Washburn University. I did 4 years of almost all varsity policy debate, captain 3 of those 4, and 2 years of forensics (IX and Info) for Bishop Carroll. I’m a hybrid tabula rasa/Hypothesis tester (This means that I come into the round with no previous opinions on the facts and although I understand them you need to give me the basis of where to start and why I should want to believe that) and will default to an impact lean if not guided on how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter (this is a note for you in every round not just for me. Impact analysis is everything in your rebuttals).

I vote based on the quality of the argument/evidence. A smart and substantive debate will win my vote more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent AND I will notice if an argument is dropped, as I flow diligently, so that will be a large part of my end-of-round evaluation.

There aren't any arguments I am specifically opposed to as long as they are debated correctly and supported, I'm fine with it. From that, I will vote on any issue if I find it substantive and defended inadequately, whether that be a T, Kritik, CP, Disad, or case. Nothing is way too absurd for me as long as you run it well. However, I do get a little bit irritated hearing a generic Disad, but if you are a novice, I will be lenient on how I judge that.

Speed is absolutely fine but if speed isn't you don't feel that you have to, it is not a debate requirement. That is also a note to the opponents. If you ask your opponents if they are okay with speed and they say no, then please be respectful or at least aware of that.

Most importantly, as a debater, I know how competitive any of us can be, but remember debate is supposed to be both competitive and fun. you probably think that's BS and to be fair I did too. Despite my saying that I do love true clash. If there isn't any all of us will be bored, not just me, so keep that in mind. Clash is what makes debate fun for everyone.

If you make an email chain, please include me or if you have any questions about the ballot: sydnievanarsdale05@gmail.com

4 year debater WEHS and NWHS, debated DCI/TOC for first 3 years, and chilled for the 4th year.

Email chain always: war.camden@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa - Tech>Truth - Policy Maker (unless you con).

Speed good

My 3 favorite things: Theory, Impact Calc, and Evidence Clash

K's/K-aff's:

- Will always listen to it, even better if I can experience a performance

- Trix are for kids, and also policy debaters! Feel free to be tricky or strategically drop parts of the K so long as you're clear about what you're doing.

Theory:
- Love it, go for it.

- 5 minutes of theory in rebuttals is dope, just don't beat around the bush.

- Theory that comes up mid-round due to circumstance is cool, just make sure to touch on procedurals and give clear impacts

Things that will dock you speaks:
- Being mean in round

- Inappropriate or inconsiderate behavior in round

- Incomprehensible spreading

- Over-aggressive CX and yelling over your opponent

More paradigm = Click here - (ctrl+click)