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!

Assistant Coach - Maize South High School

2 years policy debate, plus 8+ years judging policy

4 years forensics having competed in every event except LD & PFD and specializing in Oration and Informative

ROAD MAP YOUR SPEECHES. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE GOING ON THE JOURNEY.

DEBATE POLICY, NOT THEORY IN POLICY DEBATE. I CARE ABOUT THE CASE, NOT THE ETHICS.

email for chain: fcaster@usd266.com

Right off the rip, Speech Drop time is prep time. Make sure you keep your prep running until the file is in the Speech Drop. This is why prep was increased to 8 minutes so I want to make sure all teams are following this rule.

I am a policy maker judge at heart. I want my debaters to present a plan for how to solve an issue that is grounded in reality. Don't argue theory about how the world is broken, tell me what actual plans we can put in place to fix a problem. On the neg team side, either show me the squo is good, that the aff plan itself is flawed, or come to me with a better plan than the aff. I just want actual tangible options to vote on, not a bunch of theory. Save that for LD.

Because of this DAs and CPs are the keys to my ballot, along with some on-case attacks. I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both sides (the plan for the aff and the squo or CP for the neg depending on what route they take) and then decide which one weighs out better. As long as the pros outweigh the cons then I will likely vote for you, though that is not always the case cause as we know each round is unique and nuanced, but that is a general guideline that will lead you to be successful with me as a judge.

One note on CPs, pick ONE and run with it. I really dislike multiple CPs being ran in round, namely cause it comes off as a scatter shot and disorganized attack hoping that the aff just drops one. If you want to run multiple CPs make sure to bundle them under one umbrella and present it as a clear and cohesive plan.

I do not like speed to be used as a weapon. I understand in debate the pace of speaking will be picked up to get all the info in, but if I ever feel that a debater is attempting to speak quickly just so that the opposing team will not hear an argument and then not be able to respond to it, I will judge that critically and penalize you for that. In short, DO NOT SPREAD.

I appreciate when debaters "get off the cards". I want to see debaters analyze their cards and break down their arguments and try to connect with me on a human level rather than just rattle off facts and figures for the duration of their speech.

I am open to Topicality arguments but I want them to be specific. Don't just run T cause you feel like it and don't argue that your definition of "the" is better than someone else's. If you run T it needs to be specific and show that the affirmative is actually harming the competitiveness of the round and being abusive.

For Kritiks, I am not the biggest fan. If you are going to run a K it better be strong and it must tie directly into an overall argument on why the specific aff plan is bad and further perpetuates the issue. In short, I judge very harshly on these and require them to have a strong connection to the topic and the aff for me to vote for them. If not then I just feel you are using them to avoid debating the policy of the round, which goes against what I feel policy debate is designed for.

TL;DR - I want policy to be debated in policy debate. Help me understand the pros and cons of your position in the round and show me how voting for you leads to a larger positive than voting for the other side. Keep things rooted in reality and avoid theory as much as you possibly can.

I worked in radio for 8 years before transitioning to education so I value good communication skills in a round and being able to connect with people as I have spent a chunk of my life honing that skill. Your evidence is important but your ability to properly convey it to me is just as important. I want to see you communicate your intentions of your arguments and where you stand on the issues in the round.

As a reminder this is an educational activity and we are all people just trying to get better and learn things. I understand debate in its very nature is confrontational, but remember that your opponents are fellow human beings just like you and should be treated with respect. Try to avoid being argumentative in rounds and keep it loose.

At the end of the day just have fun!

Please make sure you know your aff well!

As far as other arguments go: I like counterplans, if you defend them well. I do like K's, but make sure you are well versed and comfortable if you're going to run one. Topicality is so important, so make it count!

Make sure you don't drop arguments, and if you do, at least explain why. A strong debate is one that hits at every point that is brought up.

I'm a stickler on cross x. Please Please Please PLEASE ask and answer your questions confidently, and ask more than just basic fillers.

I'm comfortable with any speed as long as you're able to be understood.

I am a current third year debater at Eisenhower high school.

Don't be a bully because at the end of the day debate is just a game.

I will only flow cards that are signposted and tagged clearly.

Please do not try to spread in novice debate none of you do it correctly and it just becomes unintelligible. I will not flow cards that I cannot hear you read. I should not have to rely on files to understand your evidence.

Line by line is good in rebuttals but don't forget to analyze it for me and tell me why you win on each argument.

I generally fall under the tabula rasa category when judging

Do your best :)))))

Also, I'll prefer if you didn't place random links into your cards as well as not explaining extinction cards in-depth, i.e., "everyone dies" then moves on.

I do not like Kritiks at all, but if you manage to do it successfully then I'm in your favor.

Spreading = good

glhf!

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Coached at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I am new to this topic so please explain all acronyms and topic-specific language!!

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Asst. Debate coach 7 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 7 years. Theatre Teacher

The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.

Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:

Solvency

Topicality

Inherency

I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.

To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.

I do not like spreading, unless you are articulate and easy to understand. Enunciate and clarify taglines and authors.

I do not like T or K as a general idea, but if you can give specific links and thoroughly explain how the case is a violation, try it.

I like good argument structure and organization. Speeches should be easy to flow and keep track of.

I like when you answer the arguments in the order it was presented originally-- signpost and roadmap.

I do not like racial/gender theory-- it doesn't matter if you can link it to the case, I think it fundamentally takes away from debate.

I really like good sportsmanship-- duh.

I do not like new arguments being made in the 2NC/2AC. If you are going to be making arguments they need to be brought up in your first constructive.

Signpost, Signpost, SIGNPOST!

Hey guysss

My name is Lakshmishree Sivakumar (pronounced luck-shmee-shree), and I'm a 4th year debater at East High.

I'm comfortable with speed and cool with anything you all want to run, as long as it is argued well, and warrants are explained clearly. Make sure to have proper clash, that's what makes debate interesting! Also, make sure to speak clearly and know your case well.

Also, please time yourselves and flow.

I like theory args that are argued properly and that are meaningful (or at least argued to be). Just make sure you're being ethical, even if you're a little bit sneaky. Also pls do impact calc!!!

Rebuttals are what make or break the debate, so make sure you are hitting home on your strongest argument and the opponents' biggest weaknesses and walking me through why I should vote for you.

Confidence is key, so fake it till you make it! Even if you think your case is boring or are not super well-versed in what you are debating about, being confident in your words makes all the difference. Ultimately, the way you argue is more important than the arguments themselves. (So yes, tech>truth for me)

Most importantly, make sure you're having fun and learning as much as possible from each debate. Try not to get caught up in the competition. Coming from a really competitive person: We all are here to win, but make sure not to be rude, condescending, or harsh during your speeches. Debate can bring you great friends, so be warm and kind to each other! That being said, don't let your opponent take control or make rude comments either. Take charge of CX, call out the other team for unethical behavior if needed, just don't be mean about it. Debate is a fun activity, so please keep it that way.

PS: Humor is greatly appreciated! Like I said, we're here to have fun (and win)!

PPS: If u bring me iced coffee its an automatic +5 speaks

PPPS: Ya'll got this! :)

Don't take the fun out of debate. Talk in a manner that you can be understood, I shouldn't have to rely on files to follow along. I don't tolerate hate whatsoever.