Kalil (KB) Bennett

Calvert Hall '23

Emory '27


BFHS Update for LD
I do only have experience in Policy but do still the ability to flow just need explanations of acronyms and jargon.

---T/L things---
Good for anything *that's not problematic

4 bids my senior year - attended the TOC Junior and Senior Year

Speed is fine just dont spread your analytics to make sure I can get everything

Yes, put me on the email chain - kalildebate@gmail.com

Condo is Good unless convinced otherwise

---My Background---

I have debated On the Arms Sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water, and NATO emerging tech topics

IMO the best way to get better is to make a list of teams to beat, beat them, and make the list big enough that you don't lose. Yes I actually do that and im not afraid to disclose who is on the list

---Debate Specific Stuff---

For the econ topic I know little to nothing about the mechanisms on this topic so include what most acronyms mean.

Do line-by-line, judge instruction, warrant arguments, and narrow the debate as it progresses. Any ideological preference can be overcome by good debating.I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t death good or clearly problematic.

Policy AFFs: I was Big Stick for 3 years as a 2A then switched to a planless AFF my senior year. Debate the case and keep your aff relevant in the rebuttals no matter the block strat/2nr. Cite ev when responding to case args, and numbering is your friend in deep case debates.

T vs Plans - Not the best for these debates but if its your jam please do you, Standards need a clear vision of the topic for what affs are and are not topical vs what ground is gained vs lost under your interp

CPs: I loved going for process CPs my entire debate career. For the econ topic, you should explain them slightly more just because I haven't really judged any debates on this topic. Solvency advocates are good but I will vote on solvency advocate theory.

DAs - Better if there's a cp - not always necessary. Better to do ev comparison when in these debates. Impact calc is a must, especially if its DA vs case

Ks v Plan AFFs - Good for it - in these debates, the aff needs to make the neg fw interp as useless as possible - otherwise it can be hard to win some of your best offense. Neg needs links, the more specific the better. Better to have an alt in the 2nr so please fight the urge to do that.

KvK - Love these - just do what you do best.

T vs Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it. Debate prob shapes subjectivity but individual rounds don’t.

Gene Bressler (they/them).

Debated 3 years at Calvert Hall, currently in my 4th year at Wake Forest. If you're considering college debate, feel free to ask about Wake's debate program/scholarship process.

add me to the chain: genebresslerdebate[AT]gmail.com

Novices: have fun, be yourself, ask questions after the round. Nothing below is that relevant.

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge. Every round is different. I think this paradigm makes me sound like a robot. I'm really not. Persuasion matters to me in the same, often intangible way, it matters to everyone whose made a decision about anything. Bias will inevitably occur, but I've tried to outline when I believe it's most likely below.

I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them.

1) Cliff Notes

a) 2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal. If you give a pre-scripted performance featuring both partners, that's fine. However, in the rebuttals, I am strictly flowing the words of the first person to speak.

b) Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and experience joy or frustration).

However, stealing prep is obvious and annoying. If I believe you're stealing prep, I will awkwardly ask if you're running a timer. Please spare us both that interaction.

c) Be clear. I am only looking at the document when you are reading cards. I will call clear if things are getting murky. After the second clear call, if I notice clipping, I will end the debate.

d) I flow straight down, usually on a laptop. If you are exceptionally clear, well structured, and/or number your arguments, I will try to line things up. However, my top priorities are getting as much down as possible and paying attention.

I evaluate debates technically, beginning exclusively from the flow. This means I will not read evidence if the implications of a card are not clearly laid out by either team. The more time debaters spend indicting ev on the flow, the more time I will spend reading card docs.

I am confident in my flowing abilities. If my understanding of an argument changes drastically from 1AR-2AR, I will strike new explanation. For all previous speeches, new arguments should be identified by the debaters.

e) Judge kick is the default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically. If 1NC CX suggests judge kick, objections must start in the 2AC.

f) Considering things that happened "out of round," is necessary to cohere competing interpretations, or disclosure theory. As a result, it's difficult for me to totally disregard the impact of all "out of round" issues.

While I am not qualified for or interested in litigating personal disputes, when both teams treat something as an argument rather than a "tournament issue," I am hard-pressed to not, also, treat it as an argument. Unless this becomes the fulcrum of the debate it is unlikely I will discuss it in my decision itself. But do know, I listen to and consider all the words both teams say during a debate.

g) Lastly, you are free to post round me if you wish. I don't mind being pressed, and understand frustration. I do ask that you allow me to explain myself, or pause to collect my thoughts.

Less likely to be relevant, but perhaps helpful.

2) It's very hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

a) If both teams advance an interpretation (framework on the K, topicality, theory) I will decide on one and only one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

As a result, not meeting either/any interpretation on T/Theory/Framework is almost always a round-ender.

b) Reasonability needs explicit framing. If it is the substance crowd out DA, treat it like offense. If it's a plea to abandon offense/defense, explain some other metric. If you want me to do the latter, you'll need substantial time investment starting in at least the 1AR.

3) Disadvantages

a) Less "try or die," than some. If one team accesses unmitigated try or die, they're likely in a good spot because of structural uniqueness. But if there's mitigation, and/or some alternative framing argument, I am amenable to evaluating big offense somewhere else.

That's not to say I don't care, or that your should avoid this sort of impact calculus. But I think other people care more than me, and acknowledging that seems relevant.

b) I'm fine for agenda politics/elections/other "bad" DA's. Explicit judge instruction on how I should interpret/how much I should care about evidence goes a long way.

On that note, I haven't judged or been in many debates that pushed the limits of DA intrinsicness. You're free to explore this, but I will be entering with a slight bias towards the negative and very few critical thoughts.

5) Counterplans

a) Ones that result in the plan are questionably competitive. I am better for the AFF in a vacuum, but in practice 95% of these debates involve major technical concessions/framing disparities that render my proclivities irrelevant. In close debates, defense is underappreciated, and 1AR-2AR continuity is paramount. Reference previous speeches as much as possible.

b) I am not great for models of debate that rely on textual competition. I find it intuitive that the text is only relevant insofar as it informs the plans mandates, or the bindingness of those mandates. I am easily convinced text is not the only way to determine these questions, and am a tough sell for positions that compete off of text alone.

c) If "sufficiency framing," is "compare the deficit to the DA," it seems impossible to not do that. If it's something else, please explain.

d) Conditionality is debatable. If its the right 2AR, go for it. My biases (not rigid) are that in-round abuse is less relevant than theoretical justifications, and the logical justifications for either teams interpretation are more important than its effects on debate.

6) K's vs plans.

a) I start with framework, and decide an interpretation. While doing this, I will only evaluate "framing arguments," like ontology first if the 2NR is explicit about how they implicate framework.

Once I arrive at a framework, I evaluate the rest of the line by line according to the rubric provided. Both teams should do more explaining of what arguments from the other team are excluded by their interpretation, and/or how their strategy can survive in a world of the other teams interp.

7) Planless AFF vs framework

a) Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but internal contradictions make for awkward cross-exes.

b) Better for counter-interps than impact turning everything. Best for counter-interps with definitions, but at the very least I expect to know what sorts of debates happen under the AFF's vision of the activity.

c) Internal links matter a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer to vote for a "small" and specific impact with a lot of comparisons than go down the rabbit hole of "policy deliberation solves climate change," vs. "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

8) K v K.

a) "No perms," arguments tend to be vapid, but if the AFF drops any they are in a tough spot.

b) More offense defense than most judges in these debates. The permutation has to have some offensive framing, or "any risk" of a link is hard to beat.

9) Topicality.

a) Above thoughts on offense/defense apply. Topicality does not give me the ick, and I evaluate it like every other argument.

b) I will spare you my treatise of limits vs precision thoughts. Everyone's impacts are bad, and usually couched in "literally breaking debate," for one side. Given that, the internal link is often where the money is. Describe what types of debates occur across a season of either interp.

Be specific. Your blocks are boring, your thoughts are not.

10) Lincoln Douglas

a) Everything above applies. "Speech times = AFF can do whatever" is unpersuasive. I can't change your side on the pairing.

b) I am flowing by ear. If your strategy is to blaze through an underview and hope your opponent drops a win condition, you should be crystal clear on important arguments.

c) I don't know anything about the philosophical theories that are popular in LD. I'm not expecting a college level seminar, but please explain important arguments. The side that I understand more will have an obvious advantage. I am a human, not a robot.

d) If you say "evaluate the debate after 'x' speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits. I am serious.

Indiana University – Fourth Year Judge

Email Chain: mbricker35@gmail.com

Education: PoliSci BA: IU ‘21; MPA: Policy Analysis/Public Finance: IU ’23

Debate Career: HS: N/A College: Novice/JV

Job: Financial Analyst – DFAS (DoD)

I am not actively coaching. I will read cards if I need to catch up on background knowledge, though I will work to view the round in the way it was debated.

Big Picture

Debaters do best when they do what they do best. Do that.

Debate’s Value – Debate’s Value comes from the process of debate (i.e., reading academic journals, learning how to effectively communicate various arguments/literature bases, traveling to universities across the country, etc.). Post-college your topic knowledge will fade, but the skills you develop, people you meet, and memories you create will enhance your career and enrich your personal life.

Communication – Debate, at its core, is a communication activity. Too often debaters hide themselves behind their laptops, flows, and slews of cards. The best debaters are those that can debate technically and actively engage with their opponents and judges.

Cx – Enthrall me in the drama of the debate. Cx is the perfect time to flex your topic knowledge and rhetorical skills. Ask smart questions, give the best answers. Make me laugh, cry, and feel alive. It is heartbreaking to watch a team get a solid Cx concession and for it to die there.

Speaks – I reward topic/academic knowledge, smart/strategic choices, rhetorical prowess, and growth. Speaks are a combination of how technically clean the ballot was won and how effectively you communicated.

Decorum - Reasonable sass, snark, or shade are fine. I am not a good judge for more hostile approaches, such as belittling opponents or interrupting opponents mid-speech.

Round Adjudication

Judge Role – I am an educator and adjudicator. I am evaluating arguments to determine who did the better debating based on in-round judge instructions.

Write My Ballot – Tell me: where and why I should vote for you and tie up loose ends. Final rebuttals shouldn’t be 6 min overviews, but a little story telling is fun.

Disparate line-by-line blips are frustrating and risk me missing something and voting for the other team. I will try my best to evaluate the whole flow, but I am only human and have 20 mins to submit a ballot.

Evidence – I will only read evidence after the round if it is warranted (Ex. debates over quality or how evidence should be read, etc.). Typically, this means the card is explicitly flagged in the 2NR/2AR. I have limited time and don’t want to re-create the round from a slew of cards. No card docs please, I will ask where a card is if needed.

Post-Rounding – During the RFD, you have the right to my thought process in adjudicating the round, not my belittlement. If I feel that I am being post-rounded I reserve the right to immediately end the RFD and direct you to my email.

Post-RFD Qs – Please email me your post-RFD questions. The sooner the better.

Technical Debate

Flowing - Tech over truth, but if I don’t understand an argument coming out of the round then I can’t vote on it. By “coming out of the round”, I mean the way the 2NR/2AR articulates an argument that can be traced back across the flow. At the end of the round, I prefer to recall speeches through the flow, I only look at docs if needed.

Spreading – Many open debaters would benefit from slowing down 5-10% when reading tags, long blocks/overviews, making important analytics, and transitioning arguments/flows. I will “clear” you once or twice if needed.

Signposting – Give your speech structure (Ex. Verbal cues, speed changes, argument flagging). Force my hand – make it impossible for my flows to not look like yours.

Arguments

T ­– Make your interp/model clear. My prior is that narrower topics are preferable

CPs – My prior is that the 2NR gets 1 world

DAs – Framing is everything. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump slews of cards. Crystalized links are important; If I don't understand how the aff triggers the DA then I can't vote for it.

K – An invaluable tool in a debater’s toolbox to test the resolution, affirmative, and debate space. I am less familiar with these arguments/literature bases. Explain advocacies, alternatives, and terms of art. I am less inclined to vote for arguments that are unclear, shifty, utopian, or hide behind buzzwords.

K Aff – The aff should at least be germane to the resolution in some intelligible way

FW - Can be done well, usually frustrating

Big picture things to do:
1. Robust Model of Debate – How do you view debate? Why is that important/preferable?
2. Crystalize the ROB/ROJ – What is my role? What does the ballot do? Why does this matter?

3. Terminal Impacts – Fairness? Education? How does your model/ROB/ROJ resolve these?

Open debaters, slow down to 70% of your top speed when reading the key words and subpoint tags that you want me to flow in these rounds. Especially during the block/1AR. Too often people zoom down their analytics and I find myself struggling to keep up on the flow. If this is the case, you risk me flowing straight down. I will be frustrated.

My prior is that debate is an educational activity and a game, and that fairness and education are both terminal impacts.

Theory – Quality over quantity. Give me typing time. A “dropped” argument is only true if it was properly explained and flow-able in the first place. Theory debates frustrate me when the teams are just reading their blocks back and forth without clashing. If your standards, perms, reasons to prefer are un-flowable, I am increasingly likely to write “theory party”.

Online Debate

1. Clarity is key – technology leaves many failure points, and I may miss something. Be clear – especially in the final rebuttals.

2. If my camera is not on, I am not present and/or not ready to start the speech

3. Please locally record your speeches to ensure we have a copy in the event of tech failure

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: branchen@penncareylaw.upenn.edu

I'm likely more moderate compared to most judges you'll encounter. Running kritiks beyond the Capitalism Kritik would require more thorough explanation and warranting for me to be swayed. I strongly prefer to see a clear and well-defined alternative.

I am not a coach or a teacher. I am in my last year of medical school and will be a resident physician this summer. This means that I do not know this topic well. I debated in highschool at Alpharetta from 2012-2016 and have judged high school policy debate for 9 years since then.

email -sachin.kv.98@gmail.com add me to the email chain but know that I will not be following along the document during the speeches and only am going to look at the doc after the round if I need to.

In terms of which arguments to read in front of me, you should just do you. I do have some predispositions, which are outlined below. I do tend to lean policy, but I can easily be convinced otherwise and have voted more for kritiks than I thought I would in the past.

Topicality - I think that T debates can easily get messy but enjoy a good T debate when it is impacted well on both sides. Fairness, education, and deliberation arent impacts by themselves and you need to explain why each of these are important. Topic size, breadth and depth are also not impacts, they are internal links to deliberation and education and need to be impacted as such.

Kritiks - I usually find myself voting for the team that talks about the aff more. This means that links need to be contextualized to the aff and the turns case arguments should talk about the aff as well. This applies for K's like antiblackness and meta K's. I am not familiar with a lot of the literature besides cap. security, and other basic K's, so talking about the aff and explaining the link is especially important if you like to read these arguments.

Framework - Make sure to explain what the negative's vision of debate would look like and why that would be bad and viceversa for the aff. Like on Topicality, limits and grounds are internal links to deliberation and education. But why are deliberation and education important?

Affs that do not defend the resolution

I will vote for the team that does the better debating. I believe that I lean policy on these affs but my record judging these affs says otherwise. I think that the neg needs to really explain why debate is good, and how affs that do not defend the resolution makes debate less good. This means that fairness and education are not terminal impacts and are internal links to some larger reason why debate is good. my advice is to debate these affs like a DA and CP, where TVA's and 'do it on the neg' are your 'counterplans' with sufficiency framing and a net benefit of deliberation or any other reason why debate is good. Answer their solvency deficits and impact turns and you are golden.

For the aff, when against framework, explain your vision of debate and why your aff is important to be included. Explain why framework leads to a bad vision of debate and impact why it is bad in the real world. This is especially important to me. What decisions/real-world impacts are we going to make that are net worse if the debate was only about the resolution?

DA's & Case - love a good ptx vs case throwdown. Make sure to do clear impact comparison. DA's that access the internal links to the aff area awesome and vice versa for affs. impact calculus is good. Carded turns case args are important.

CP's & Conditionality - Really like specific counterplans that are based off of the other teams evidence. Even though i was a 2n, i tend to lean Aff on competition especially with process counterplans. I think that process counterplans ruin the creativity and fun of being neg. I really like creative multiplank counterplans that are recut from aff ev.

I believe conditionality should be debated like any other T debate. Explain the internal links and use your counter interpretation to solve the other sides offense.

you can go for conditionality in front of me with only 2 conditional advocacies

- Tech > truth

- I like jokes

- I will not under any circumstance vote for morally repugnant arguments such as racism good or extinction/suicide/death good. I will not vote on any anecdotes/conflicts between teams that occurred outside of the debate round.

I miss policy debate; I come back when I can. If you want to talk to me about strategies, med school, or the intersection between debate and medicine, feel free to chat.

Sachin K.

Experience - B.A. in Women Gender and Sexuality Studies, 1 year of college policy, KU, 4 years of high school, for Barstow. Currently coaching for Barstow for the 2023-2024 season. I am most familiar and equipped to judge debates involving Queer Theory, Necropolitics/Foucault, Settler Colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, and Derrida/Hauntology in terms of both my ability to evaluate technical debate on the flow as well as give productive and pedagogically valuable responses.

Determining Speaks - To me, a good speaker is articulate, persuasive, confident, respectful, and kind. I allocate speaker points based on a debater's skill. However, even if someone is a "good debater" in a skill sense, if they are rude or dismissive to their opponents, their ability as a debater matters much less because they have failed to be a good person. Good speakers should be good people first.

Notes - I have some hearing problems, if you are unclear, I will say "clear." Don't sacrifice speed / the extra off at my behest, just make sure you articulate. Ideal clarity is I should be able to flow without referencing the doc at all.

You are responsible for keeping track of where you mark cards. Please be able to timely send a marked doc / card docs must be marked if you marked cards in the debate.

If reading "extra" cards in a speech that are not in the doc, send them BEFORE you read them rather than after.

Incentivizing Strategies

+.3 for Flow Rebuttals

+.1 for Kicking an Advantage

+.1 for DA/CP/Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for K / Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for Evidence Comparison (Novice)

-.1 for Unhighlighted Cards - Please take the extra 30 sec of prep to highlight

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

¡Bienvenido!

Please add me to the email chain.

isaackudebate@gmail.com

I DO NOT USE FILE SHARE

General Info:

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley West (KS)

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Spearman High School TX 2022 - (Congress)

University of Kansas 2026 - (Policy) Currently Debating

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge > Isaac

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 9/29/2024**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I don't really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Evidence:

I'm cool cards and I also like blocks. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

K:

Assume that I know nothing about your literature base. Even though I read K's in college, it's good practice to win why your theory of power matters more than the plan. This should be how your ideal 2NR is structured to get my ballot on a K:

Re-Establish your theory of power

Extend the link with the most amount of offense than defense

answer any alt defense

and then sit on why the alt solves.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

Will vote either way. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Clash :

Love it

Fairness:

Not opposed to it

Theory:

Kinda tricky for me. I think I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

T:

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many planks you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction

Be nice to each other.

Here are some people I somewhat align with Dr. Brett Bricker, Dr. Scott Harris, Luna Schultz, and Will Soper.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

IR Master's Candidate @ Georgetown

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

Coaching Taipei American School and Harvard

for email chains: jpark.debate@gmail.com

for college:harvard.debate@gmail

for high school: taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

I enjoy case-specific, fully developed strategies that are well-explained and backed with high-quality evidence/persuasion.

I am a bad judge for teams that rely on the brute force of conditionality, proliferate incomplete arguments, and use strategies that moot the AFF and K AFFs.

I know functionally zero about the high school and college topics.

General Judging:

1. Respect your opponents.

2. Be efficient. The email chain should be sent out early. Don't steal prep. CX ends after 3 minutes. Prepare a card document ASAP.

3. Flow.

4. Clarity. I should hear every single word you say.

5. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another person's speech.

6. Net benefits should be verbally specified in the 1NC.

7. Will not vote on ad homs.

8. Teams should disclose and open source their evidence.

9. Will try to avoid filling in gaps if debaters don't explain it

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer straight-down, include CX, and have docs open the whole debate (usually) — I don't flow based on the doc, but check for clipping/like following along. I wouldn't consider myself the best "flow," but I type relatively quickly, so this has not been a problem in my judging career (yet).

My Biases:

1. Vertical proliferation > horizontal proliferation

2. Specificity > vagueness

3. I prefer debates to be topic-specific. AFFs and NEG strategies should be germane to IPR/clean energy policy — this means 2NRs on wipeout, spark, or generic process counterplans are less strategic in front of me.

4. Dispo > condo

5. Plans don't exist in a 'vacuum.'

6. Counterplans should compete via text AND function.

7. Willing to vote for theoretical objections considered 'arbitrary' if the outlined practice is unreasonable.

8. AFFs should be topical.

9. Links should be to the plan.

10. AFF-specific Ks > generic Ks

Updated:12/1/22

NOTE: This paradigm is meant for policy debate. If I am judging you in any other form of debate then what I have below does still apply but I am not all that familiar with the format or norms of argumentation for other forms of debate. If there is a specific way in which your form of debate should be framed and evaluated, it is your responsibility for making that known and then forwarding an argument about why it should be evaluated in that way.

About Me:

• I competed in policy debate at Ruston High School.
• I did some coaching, judging, and debating while in college at Tulane, where I received a Masters in Policy Economics.
• I work as a Credit Risk Management Analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Any opinions I have are mine alone and not those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond or the Federal Reserve System. That being said, I try very hard not to let either my experience or my opinions influence how I judge debate.
• I prefer a good policy debate with an intensive case debate and relevant disadvantages over a critical debate. See the Kritik section if you are thinking about running one.

Big Picture:

• Sportsmanship: Debate is a platform by which competitors mutually enter into an academic environment to pursue education. If you do not respect your competitors, your speaker points will reflect it. With that being said, I am open to debates about what the academic environment should look like.
• Communication: It is the job of the debater to effectively convey their point. It is the debater's responsibility for making sure that the judge clearly understands their points. I do not enjoy yelling "Clear," but I will do it 3 times before I stop flowing entirely. Likewise, your speaker points will suffer for each time I have to intervene. Because debate is contingent upon good communication, I do not want to be added to the email chain or to be given evidence to follow along with as this defeats the purpose for actually speaking (if the tournament is in-person). I make exceptions if the tournament is online, as poor internet quality and natural technological hiccups can result in me missing arguments that would have otherwise been effectively communicated.
• Prep: Flash time does count as prep time. Clearly say when you are starting and ending prep. I will penalize teams that appear to be doing prep after they have ended prep.
• Speaker Points: Speaker points are contingent upon a variety of factors including: clarity, road-mapping, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, effective participation in CX, a constructive speech, and a rebuttal, merits of your strategy, and presentation.
• Flowing: I evaluate the debate entirely off of my flow. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are clear enough for me to flow you. If it is not on my flow, do not expect me to "fill in the blanks." If there is evidence in contention, I will call for it after the round to see what it actually says. If the tournament is in-person, I do not want to be added to your email chain, if it is online, ask me for my email and please add me.It is in your best interests to accurately represent the author's argument.
• Evidence: I reward teams who use quality evidence over a hot jumble of buzzwords. If a card is in question, I will call for it after the round. I give credit to an author's credentials and I think you should too. I should not have to read un-highlighted parts of your evidence to understand it. I have no tolerance for clipping, or jumping around parts of a card unannounced. If you mark a card, you better have it clearly marked on your document.
• Decision Making: The way I judge the debate is entirely up to you. I will default to whatever I am told to do. Therefore, it is important to win framing arguments if you expect to win the round.

Specifics:

• Topicality:
  • I prefer the Aff actually have a plan or advocacy statement.
  • T is always a potential voter, but the negative must show an actual violation of the definition and prove in-round abuse for me to actually want to vote for it. With that being said, if the other team drops it entirely, of course I will vote on T.
  • The more specific the better.
• Kritiks:
  • Must have an alternative
  • Alt must solve
  • Must win Framework debate if you expect to win the K
  • Must prove why thinking and acting are opportunity costs. If your alternative does not involve an action, but instead is something that can and does take place solely in the mind, then there better be a reason why you can't think in a different way to fulfill the alt while also doing a policy action to solve the Aff. In other words, I hold the negative to a high threshold on permutation debates.
  • Although I ran and debated against Kritiks a lot in high school, I am honestly not that big of a fan of them. Run them at your own risk: I hold Kritiks to a high threshold both on the link debate and the alt solvency debate. I am fair though, if your opponents do not prove why such a high threshold should be imposed and you are winning these debates along with the framework debate, you will win the K.
• Performance:
  • Must have a purpose
  • Must prove why conventional policy debate doesn't work to represent your point and why I should value your point
  • If you break from the conventional platform of debate only to be funny, expect to lose. With that being said, I think performances can serve a vital role in advocacy if it is sincere
• Counter Plans:
  • I love a good theory debate.
  • I also love coherent Neg strats meaning that DAs that link to the CP will hurt you.
  • Read CP text slowly and clearly enough for me to actually flow it (like seriously, if I could bold this anymore, I would)
  • I seriously doubt your one terrible card below your generic CP text makes it all that much better than the 8 minute 1AC.
• Disadvantages:
  • Please have current Uniqueness cards
  • Not every impact has to be nuclear war or extinction, but I will evaluate them as they are presented.
  • I love impact calc debates

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Top Level Judging Notes:

· Please keep track of your own prep

· Please be as quick with tech as possible as I want to be respectful of folks running the tournament

· No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily

· Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

When I was a debater at Kentucky I was entered as a "hired judge" for all the high school tournaments we hosted. Even though I never really ended up judging, I had to come up with a paradigm or else. I copy and pasted Ava Vargason's philosophy back then and never looked back. I might write a judge philosophy with my own thoughts at a later time when the world isn't collapsing, but for now, Ava is a brilliant person and her 2017 philosophy continues to encapsulate my thoughts about debate and strats:

"I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments."

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com, taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem.

--I am good for any negative position that argues the plan is undesirable. Bad for arguments that intentionally avoid the case.

--Argument quality matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones.

--Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

--I try to transcribe the debate and cross-ex on my computer. I generally don't follow along with speech docs. At the end of the debate, I read cards if needed to resolve important disputes in the debate.

--I do high school topic research. Outside of debate I am a graduate student studying machine learning at Cornell. My undergraduate was in computer science and economics at the University of Kansas.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by existence of predictable and high quality negative ground.

Counterplans

Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard.

Process CPs are awful for debate. If evidence quality is good and comparative to the plan, I am game, otherwise my biases heavily favor the affirmative on theory and competition questions.

I will judge kick counterplans unless instructed otherwise.

I think conditionality is bad, but my voting record favors the negative. One or two conditional advocacies seems reasonable, anything more quickly reduces the quality of the debate.

Ideally, the negative specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

Link debating and evidence is often the important part of a DA.

Case

Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

Case debating is better than counterplan debating.

If you decide to read a framing page, make it meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I don't need a framing page to vote affirmative for a low magnitude high probability impact vs. low probability DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

You should strike me if you don't read a plan. I will vote negative if minimum expectations are met when going for framework.

I think fairness is the best impact, but am also persuaded by arguments about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable affirmative constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I enjoy well researched and specific critical arguments. The negative should win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Framework arguments should have implications. The 2NR and 2AR should give instruction for what to do if you win or lose your interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solve against the impacts of links the alternative can solve.

I will vote negative for a linear DA.

The alternative should solve a material problem and am not persuaded by alternatives that 'reject' the plan.

Performative contradictions matter. I am persuaded that the negative does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and economy DA.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

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.

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Ok, after my last tournament, I have to add this. If you don't argue or signpost the name of your off-case argument, I'm immediately lowering your speaks. I don't want to try and figure out what is the point of your argument from poorly labelled cards. Also, label your uniqueness, net benefit, alt, role of the ballot, etc. Please don't make me try and guess while you are going full varsity speed. This is my new pet peeve. It would also be nice if you tell me what they are in your off-time road map rather than just giving me "nine off, then case" and hoping i can figure it all out.

Two other things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.