Andrew Hutchinson

4th-year debate student at Manhattan High School, 4-time state placer and 2 time National Qualifier

Email chain - andrewhutch5@gmail.com (please use speech drop if possible)

I have preconceived biases towards left-leaning arguments

I can keep up with arguments but please please please roadmap and signpost. Nothing makes me angrier than when I miss an argument. Preferably just use speech drop and that will make all of our lives easier.

Debate is a place to have fun don't take it too seriously. As far as arguments I'm relatively well versed in most forms of argumentation but as a good rule of thumb just explain well because, at the end of the day, I don't know everything.

DA's- I use DA's all the time just make sure you link and the impacts outweigh.

CP's- I'm not against CP's as long as you don't contradict yourself.

K's- I would lean on the side of not running a K because I haven't dived too deep into learning K's, that being said if you do have a K that you really want to run go for it. Just make sure you lay it out for me because there is no way in hell I have read any of your obscure literature base.

Overall just have fun, we're all still people at the end of the day so treat each other with respect.

-P.S If you stalk me and find facts about me that's silly and I won't be angry.

Last Updated---1/12/2024

Washburn Rural '26

joeljijo87@gmail.com

Topics: (NATO, Fiscal Redistribution)

Top Level

I believe that debate is a game of technical strategy and that if you debate better and make the better arguments, I believe that you should win. I believe that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant in a debate round I think that debaters should go for the argument that they usually go for. My preferences do not matter when it comes to what kind of debater you are. Just because I like a certain argument does not mean that I will 100% vote for it all the time I am generally neutral in all of them. I also believe that dropped arguments are considered true.

I believe that the debate space is open to all types of arguments but any that may be going against ethical standards should be rejected. I don't think that anything someone has done outside a debate round should ever be brought into the debate space. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Tech over Truth

I believe that evidence and evidence comparison is a very underrated skill in debate. I think that more people should start making arguments about the authors and dates of each card and should be contesting the actuality of the card itself. I believe that dropped evidence is true however quality is much better than quantity.

I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

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

I love seeing cross applications as opposition to arguments on different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

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

You can insert evidence although you will have to explain it. This is not a robot activity, this is a communication activity. That means explain your rehighlighting inserts.

I will be very sad if you send a pdf document as a speech.

Argument Specific

Counterplans: Nice. Do it. Disadvantages: Nice. Do it. Topicality: Nice. Do it. Don't run T as a time skew that will result in lower speaks. That means don't run like 4 T shells and kick them all in the block. Same thing applies to vagueness and ASPEC. Kritiks: My lit base is quite narrow, this means a couple of things. 1. You will have to explain to me what is bad about the plan. 2. You will have to understand the arguments you are making. I have worked with lit such as Settler colonialism and Orientalism. I will determine who wins framework through evaluating each framework interpretation. I believe that this is the best way for me to evaluate Ks. You need to make it very clear why you win framework, just saying that the aff is an object of research will not cut it. You need to be able to explain what that means and how that implicates the affirmatives arguments.

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

K Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

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

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Case:

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Guys!

Qualifications:

Four years of Debate at MHS

President and Founder of Mock Trial program at MHS

Arguments:

I'm open to everything, but you need to explain it well if you run a K.

Preferences:

ADD ROADMAPS AND SIGNPOSTING

Please don't be an annoying debater and make it a fun round.

If you read this, come up to me before the round, shake my hand, and say, sandwich.

I have no real preferences on cases as long as you make sense and your arguments are well structured.

I have some experience in debate but im a bit rusty so it would probably be better to treat me as a lay judge .

I flow on my laptop so let me know if I'm typing too loud or distracting you. I also really appreciate off time road maps and case summaries so please do them when possible.

speed shouldnt be an issue for me but if you think you may talk particularly fast just let me know and we can figure out a signal for me to tell you to slow down if needed.

I prefer to also have your speeches to look at while taking notes so please make sure to get me your speech drop codes in round.

as long as you are respectful to yourself your teammates and your opponents the round you should be fine the easiest way to lose points is by being a bad person

Welcome to my Paradigm!

I'm gonna start with 3 things-

1. Congrats! You're doing better than most debaters by actually checking my paradigm, and
2. I'm gonna try to give you the best judging experience I can :)
3. My email if you're doing email chain is serivera0616@gmail.com . I prefer SpeechDrop, though.

Now, onto the actual debate stuff.

I'm a second year debater and senior at MHS. My novice year ended in a relatively successful trip to state :) I went to the Jayhawk Debate Institute in 2023 so I'm pretty familiar with debate lingo and tech stuff. I'm definitely a policymaker and stuff that skirts the resolution isn't my favorite, but if you run it well enough, I will vote on it.

Let's go item by item-

DAs- No problem! I love them. My baby is a good DA.

T- Yes (If run well and clearly) for Open and above, NO for early novices. You were literally given the case. It's topical.

Ks- Not a HUGE fan, but if you explain it well enough, then I would be able to vote on it :) You're really going to need to hold my hand through it. I don't want to have to draw my own conclusions about what your case DOES. Prove it to me!

CPs- You have to very clearly prove how the CP is superior and how it doesn't link to any of your DAs or T. I think CPs have a tendency to be abusive, so don't use it as an "easy win" strategy.

Impact types- I'm fine with most impacts! Nuke war, climate, death, etc.- as long as you put it out in the round and support it, I'll roll with it! For unconventional/structural violence impacts, make sure to run some good framing.

Impact turns- I'm fine with a good impact turn! That's the thing, though- it has to be good. Prove why this possibly detrimental thing is actually something good. The one thing I really hate is impact turns like "death good" or "extinction good". No they aren't. Personally, I like the fact that you and I are alive and reading this right now.

Link Turns- I love link turns! They're a very reliable on-case argument, not much to say otherwise.

Impact calc- Magnitude, timeframe, probability. Show me EXACTLY why you deserve to win. Tell me how to vote.

Speed- I can keep up with some amount of speed, but don't sacrifice clarity and argumentative ability for speed. Focus on good arguments instead.

Summarizing- I do have a tendency to enjoy some "storytelling", or summarizing and explaining your case. It helps you come across as more put together and knowledgable if you can summarize the case in your own words.

Silliness- Some silliness can be fun. I ran a case where all my overviews were food themed. I didn't do well, but it was a good time! Debate should be strategic AND fun. The only thing I ask is that you keep a basic level of decorum. Even if you know your opponents, even if you know ME, even if it's a relaxed environment, you're still debating and should treat it like such.

Flowing- I'm gonna be flowing and you should be too. I love SpeechDrop but I'm not as big on email chain.

CX- Either open or closed. If you're doing open, then you HAVE to carry your own weight. Don't rely on your partner for ALL answers or questions, just some clarification when needed.

Some debate pet peeves of mine-

-Ultra-aggressive CX. Don't be a jerk.

-Lying in the 2AR. Manipulating facts? Sure. LYING? No. What is wrong with you.

-BEING HATEFUL/RUDE- Automatic loss. Don't whisper about your opponents and don't yell at your partner. Be a good person, please. I shouldn't have to ask this but people can suck.

-"Death good" and other associated turns. No. Just no.

I'm basically looking for a round with good clash, good manners, and good speaking! In the words of my coach, "Speak pretty and don't suck!"

Lansing 25’ (he/they)

email: innocuous.email2@gmail.com

I'm a third year at Lansing, i've been in DCI and KDC each for a year and i've gotten to outrounds at Heritage Hall and Glennbrooks. I've gone to NSDA in LD and Extemp. Bottom line is, I'm flexible to whatever style you want to debate in. I'm pretty Tabula Rasa and would prefer to resolve the debate with as little judge intervention as possible.

Speed is fine as long as you SPEAK UP and ENUNCIATE. If I can't hear what you are saying then I won't factor it into my decision.

I will NOT tolerate any racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc. This activity is for everyone and language/actions that exclude people is an automatic L.

Please ask if you have any further questions

Former MHS Debater

sydney.k.vahl@gmail.com

Add me to the speechdrop or email chain

My paradigm is mainly just me ranting about all the things that have annoyed me in debate, don't take it too seriously :) I update this after every tournament I've competed at/judged at

Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is. I didn't know how important this was to me until I forfeited a round crying and the judge didn't do anything. If you make your opponents cry and are being consistently a mean and bad person there is no way you will get my vote. I will not hesitate to stop a round.

Not a fan of emotional appeals. I don't care that "all my friends and family are going to die" or "thinking about the children", just explain your cards and why your impact outweighs PLEASE!

I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them. Lazy debaters run false arguments.

MAJOR NOTE: If I'm making a face at you it's probably because I don't like what you're saying, so don't keep saying it and move on. Novices this means you.

Flow: I will (most likely) be flowing the round. Don't send me a masterfile, I only want the cards you are reading in round. If I don't know what you read, I won't flow it and you will lose on the flow.

Paper debate: No.

Lying: STG, if you think you can go up in your 2AR and just lie through the entire thing you need to never debate again because you are the problem. I WILL NOT accept blatant lies. DO NOT LIE ON THE FLOW. DO NOT tell me card's weren't answered to when they obviously were. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of lies that I couldn't contest and I know what it feels like to lose to lies I couldn't contest, don't be that person. Lying on your arguments is an entirely different story though. If you can successfully gaslight the other team, good for your girlie pop. If they don't question it, that's on them. I however, will question it, so watch what you say. TD;DR don't lie on the flow, all other lying is ok unless you get called out or I ignore you <3

CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!

Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed.

Spreading: I think speed and spreading are different things. If you speak faster but I can still hear actual words coming out of your mouth you're all good. Spreading so fast that your words are unintelligible is not acceptable. If I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth then I'm not flowing it. I can only write/type so fast, if I miss something I'm not going back to fix it later.

On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.

Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.

K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then.

DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.

T: I'm a reformed T hater. While I don't like T being used as a time suck or being used against obviously topical cases, I LOVE LOVE LOVE a T double bind (T Subs & IRS Trade-Off DA<333). Not a fan of T with novice caselist. You have a packet with every possible adv and argument, there are no voters. Voters are the biggest thing for me on t. Even if you can prove a violation, if you have no voters then it doesn't matter to me. AKA losing voters = losing the arg

CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF. Generally I think CPs are lazy ways to get out of interacting case, if you go with a CP I still want to see flow on case. I hate seeing more than one CP, no multiple worlds nonsense. If you're still holding onto both of them by rebuttals and don't tell me which you're kicking then I will choose what to kick and I guarantee you won't be happy with my choice.

Rebuttals: The most important part of the round to me. Give me a well organized and efficient rebuttal. This is your time you really hammer in the central messages and ideas of your case, don't waste it.

Analytics: Don't tell me a team didn't properly respond to your arguments when they read analytics. You're not going to have a card for everything and that's ok, sometimes you only need a quick analytic (but not all the time, use cards when you can <3).

Condo: BAD! If you've got like 3 off 2 DA and T and drop T by the 2NR then that's fine but I will not sit through more than that. 4+ off only shows that you came in ill prepared to actually debate the resolution. I want quality over quantity.

Things I hate:

• Extinction good
• Bootlickers and butt-kissers
• Name calling/accusations. DO NOT resort to calling your opponents names. Calling someone racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist etc. is serious and not just something to win you the debate round.
• Assuming facts about a person and forming arguments about them in round. It is so funny for me as a white-passing-Asian getting "called out" for running Asian related arguments.
• T args without proper voters. IDC if theres a violation if the other team can prove that there are no harms
• Schools that are not small running small schools. Girliepop be so for real
• Running T as a noble argument. The effects of topicality only matter to me in round
• K Affs (hate hate hate hate hate hate)
• "This is my CX" This is so unnecessary just move on , you don't have to engage. I HATE this
• Calling for abuse when there so clearly wasn't. Responding to the arguments that YOU brought up is not abusive lol
• Not a politics DA person. I've run and cut enough of them to know how bad the uniqueness arguments can be. If you lose uniqueness then you lose the DA. Unless you can cut a politics DA right before or the day of probably avoid these with me. I love the idea of them but it just end up being a recency debate and I hate that with a passion
• Yes or no questions in cx. If you asked someone a question let them answer it how they want to answer it, don't put words in their mouth. If you do this nonsense (not the word I want to use) I will feel more sympathetic to the team being CXed. Yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no does nothing for anyone

Things I love

• More tangible real-world impacts. Structural violence>>>nuke war
• A good trade-off DA
• DOUBLE BINDS <333
• IMPACT CALC
• Framing and framework. ESPECIALLY uncontested framing and framework

Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.

If you're looking for my political affiliation, just don't run hard right arguments. I tend to vote on more left leaning args.

Feel free to reach out afterwards to ask me about my ballot or if you need further clarification.

please add me to the email chain: xkatewardx@gmail.com

***i have difficulty with auditory processing, so while i can follow a fast pace, spreading will likely lose me and you the round. if you have any questions/concerns about this, feel free to ask me. i will clear you, but only if you ask me to.***

i'm a fourth year debater at manhattan high school (Kansas), competing in dci/varsity policy debate. feel free to ask questions after round or email me.

novices—don't worry about a lot of what's in this paradigm, most of it isn't relevant to novice debate. regardless of what you run, you do your best and i'll do my best to give you helpful feedback. if you're confused about something or get overwhelmed, please talk to me and we'll figure it out. your learning and well-being will always override competition. also please ask me questions after round! i'm always down to answer debate questions.

top level:

i'm a policymaker at heart, but i've dabbled in kritikal debate, so feel free to run anything in front of me as long as you can run it well. judge adaptation is stupid. tech over truth—unless the round requires an evaluation on truth or you ask me to vote on absurd/abusive/unrealistic arguments you have simply out-teched your opponent with (pls call this out more y'all). i love and greatly appreciate a quality, well-researched strat, and die a little every time i see otherwise. judge instruction! tell me why and how i should vote in the rebuttals! if unanswered (or not answered well), i will likely do exactly what was asked.

hurtful language and/or racist/sexist/homophobic remarks are an auto loss. all requested accommodations should be made without issue. rudeness will hurt your speaks and my willingness to vote for you. please just be nice and considerate.

topicality

i default to competing interpretations. T for the sake of timesuck or forcing a link is fine. if you're actually going in on T, there needs to be significant debate about harms/benefits of the two models of debate, and what i should ultimately prefer.

counterplans

general—i run counterplans. specifically, i run (and love) unique/custom counterplans that are both textually and functionally competitive (different actor, and at least meaningfully different action). that being said, i think a lot of counterplans can be really abusive, so i'm a little predisposed to theory on anything that fails to present a truly competitive alternative (delay, pics, consult, etc). i think future or conditional fiat is probably abusive. net benefits need to be well articulated (especially internal net benefits), and the negative needs to explain why a perm severs, not just say that it does. that being said, i'll vote on a counterplan based on how it goes on the flow. major props though to teams running genuinely good advocacies as counterplans, even more so if you kick it in the end.

counterplan theory—intrinsic perms are a no (adds an element previously not present to the plantext; time aka a delay, this-then-that, etc). honestly, the only truly valid CP perms are perm-do-both (they can coexist), perm-do-the-CP (the CP is topical and basically the aff), and even then i'd say PDCP is often severance. "PDB shields the link" needs to be explained, and an explanation of what the PDB would look like is necessary if you want to vote on it. pointing out that no explanation has been given scores the neg team points. a good answer to a perm is simply an explanation of the textual and functional competition of your counterplan, it should almost never require evidence. do not run illegal perms and then expect me to vote on them if they neg doesn't specifically respond to all 7 of them. condo is probably good, but i will lean aff if you are going +4 off.

disads

i really respect a well run disad. uniqueness should be up to date or at least you need to be able to analytically convince me everything is still practically unique. specific links can go a long way, but again, a good contextualization of a generic link through analytics can also work. impact calc shouldn't just be buzz words, but explained in the specific context of the impact scenarios at play. turns case/impact turns need to be well explained and preferably carded—well-articulated turns will really help you out on the rest of the flow.

kritiks

general—i have experience with these lit bases: security, techno-orientalism (i love poststructuralist kritiks), abolition, and racial cap, but i can probably judge most things as long as it's explained well. links need to be more than omission and more than just the topic broadly (or at least contextualized more specifically). if it's not your story don't tell it, and please don't use your experiences as leverage over other teams. we're here to learn, and shutting people out ruins that.

specifics—i think that link work is just as important as explaining/defending the alt, but a lot of teams focus so heavily on proving their links that they forget to develop their alt—the alt is your advocacy, so it needs to be fleshed out, even if unopposed in round. i will be extremely hesitant to vote on something i do not understand, because if i can't understand it, how am i supposed to know it solves? if the aff points that out in round, and the neg doesn't clarify, that's enough for me to prefer the aff. K's without alt's are just case turns, and if the link isn't specific, they're really not persuasive—please point this out aff teams. i think aff teams should probably be able to weigh the plan, unless you can convince me something outweighs that in terms of education and fairness (harmful rhetoric, etc).

kritik theory--condo in K rounds is the one of the only times i find it even remotely persuasive and that's for the simple fact that answering Ks takes serious time. And if the other team is running it purely as a timesuck, well that's not very fair or educational. there's a lot more perms available on K's, but please don't run +3 unexplained perms and expect them to win the round. neg teams, i think perm spec theory is a good reason for me to reject the argument. floating PIKs are usually pretty dirty (rarely actually solve for the plan), but if they're fairly obvious from the onset, i'll give you more leeway.

theory

theory exists to shutdown bad behavior, reinforce a positive debate culture, and prioritize education in a debate. i do not think it exists to overwhelm the other team or secure an easy win. i think fairness and education are voting issues (if the situation truly violates those concepts), and i'm down for more creative voters (inclusion, clash, real world, portable skills, iterative testing, etc)

y'all should be running more perf con (performative contradiction bad)/multiple worlds. nothing makes me more annoyed than obviously contradicting arguments, and i will jump at the opportunity to give you a win on education and fairness. if your CP would still trigger DA, then don't run them together (yes, even with an internal NB)—turning yourself is just bad debate.