I debated 4 years in high school, and have judged/coached at plenty of tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I am currently a high school English teacher and debate/forensics coach. I value communication skills a lot, but the arguments being made must also have substance. I'm typically a tab judge, and will value what you convince me is most important; but if no framework is given by the debaters, I will default policy maker. I have no preference in speed as long as you speak clearly. CPs are fine, and topicality is fine, Ks are okay if you break them down. Disadvantages should have clear links to the aff, and should all be impacted out.

Please use speechdrop.net, if using an email chain. Archerdan82@gmail.com, please put me on.

I'm Dan Archer I debate for Washburn University in my fourth year, NFA LD format ( 1 person policy ). I debated for 4 years at Derby high.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't adapt to me.

Aggressive CX are annoying and unnecessary. Insults are a round loser for me. It's one thing to debate the args but personal attacks are a round loser.

K debate- I am familiar with core K args but anything that's too far out you need to explain. You are welcome to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your K/ authors.

T- You still need to do standards debate and everything, but I tend to lean toward competing interps. Saying voters for fairness and Ed is not an argument, impact that out.

Theory- do what you can justify

Speed- Do whatever the norm is.

CP- CP's do what you can justify. I get annoyed by super vague cp texts.

DA- use them anything goes.

Case- if you are going for presumption make it clear and you need to put together a good story here, you're better off having a risk of offense

I don't read evidence unless I am asked. If i am asked to read evidemce, tell me what I am looking for. If you tell me the card is bad and I should read it, you're asking me to intervene. I believe the tag lines of evidence is true until I'm told otherwise.

You dictate the pace and atmosphere of the round. If you are clearly winning the round please don't bully the other team.

Please clearly tell me why you win. That is the best thing you can do in the round.

If I don't have something on the flow then I don't think it happened.

TLDR: I run everything and have experience with most args. I am most comfortable in a round that the debaters are doing what they are comfortable doing. This is your round I will evaluate the args as presented.

Quals-

4 years of policy and 2 years of LD in high school. 4 years of NFA-LD at Washburn. I’ve been to nationals in high school and college, and went deep a couple of times at NFA-LD nats.

Short version-

Speed is fine. Tech over truth. I will not intervene at any point in the round, including judge kicks. Tell me where to vote. Do not be discriminatory at any point in the round, I will vote you down.

Long version-

*If you read an ethics violation, per NFA-LD rules, I will stop the round and we will take it to the ethics table. After that, the decision is out of my hands. (If you are not in NFA-LD, ignore this).

Aff – I tend to lean towards the four pillars when it comes to aff’s and how I think they should be structured. With that said, unless your opponent calls you out, I will still vote for an aff without a couple of the 4 pillars. I will not vote for planless aff’s. Even if what you are talking about is 100% true, if you don’t read a plan text you do nothing about it.

T – I have a little bit of a high threshold for T, with that being said, I do think that reasonability is judge intervention. You have to win your definition and standards debate. I will not just step in and say that the aff is reasonable enough.

Theory – will vote on a good theory. If the aff or neg is bad for the debate say that. I love a good Ospec, solvency advocate, disclosure, condo, speed theory debate.

K – I enjoy K’s. I read psychoanalysis the most when I debated. I have a decent grasp on most K research. This doesn’t mean that you should assume that I know what your K is/ what it is doing. Make sure you have a clear alt and that the link and impacts are clear. I will not do the link/ impact work for you. If it is an “implicit” impact, alt, or link K I will not fill in the gaps.

CP – I don’t have any real feed back for CP’s. if it’s competitive its competitive. If its not its not. If it solves it solves. That what the debate is for.

DA – same as the CP pref. A DA is a DA.

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

From 2012-2016, I debated at the University of Kansas and coached at two high schools in Kansas. I stopped coaching in 2017. These days, I teach at Washburn Law School in Topeka, Kansas. I like to read evidence during the debate, so please add me to the email chain.

When I debated, I primarily read policy arguments. My paradigm back then said that the affirmative must be topical. I probably still hold that view, but I haven't thought about debate in some time and wouldn't be surprised if my views on topicality/framework have shifted. Ultimately, I think my job as a judge is to evaluate your arguments thoroughly and to vote for the team that won those arguments.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask, and good luck!

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Assistant for Washburn Rural

Competed @ Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed though in my experience debaters often benefit from slowing down and speaking more efficiently. SLOW DOWN on your theory blocks. I need pen time and I promise you your theory blocks are not as easy to flow as you think they are. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good. I will vote on condo bad, but find myself voting neg very frequently unless they chronically under covered the arg.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy and will not default to it. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm happy to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading pure reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Speaker Points

I will boost your speaks by 0.1 points each for sending speech docs as you stop prep time (not after) and for giving 2NR/2AR without a computer.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

Email: Jenna.gorton@washburn.edu

I prefer speech drop

NFALD-

I did NFA LD for 4 years for Washburn University. I currently am a grad assistant for Washburn's debate team. My favorite type of argument is T/theory/rules. As long as you're impacting out why fairness and education matter and are reading 4 parts on the sheet I'm willing to listen to basically any theory position. That being said, I also like aff outweighs T arguments or other offense generated against theory sheets. I don't come into the round assuming debate is good or bad so it's the debaters job to persuade me. I consider myself tech>truth on theory sheets as long as you are making actual warranted arguments and aren't just saying claims.

If I have to intervene because of a messy flow or because nobody extended an impact I become a stock issues judge. As such, I tend to have a much higher threshold for whichever team doesn't have presumption.

Speed is fine. I don't have a preference. If I miss something because you weren't clear that is on you. I probably won't clear you so use reasonable discretion.

Please run your weird cheater affs/strats in front of me. Of course you have to theoretically justify them on the back end, but this activity can be so boring and I want to see your creativity.

I'm very sympathetic to arguments focused on pointing out deployment errors in general (no uniqueness on a disad, only claims with no warrants on standards debates, dropped args are true args, vague interps bad, etc. etc.).

On Ks I'm not a huge fan of links of omission. I also am VERY sympathetic to criticisms of non-indigenous debaters reading set col or other such arguments. If the link isn't a link of omission there are exceptions.

If you're going for presumption and have a counteradvocacy please don't also extend the alt/CP. Just go for presumption.

I think it's the judge's responsibility to intervene if anything problematic was said to another debater and I will even if the other team doesn't call it out. I am also likely to intervene if you're excluding someone using speed or by not sending analytics if you have been communicated with about this before the round. It's cool to do mid-round off time clarification questions or to type up analytics to send if asked by your opponent to resolve these issues.

Overall, I tend to want to vote without thinking very much if possible. This means a good collapse can easily win my ballot even if the rest of the debate was not going in your favor. If you're winning everywhere but don't collapse to anything and the other team does collapse to something I'm going to lean towards the team that collapses to something unless it's just completely unwinnable.

I'll probably learn more about myself as I judge more NFALD and I'll try to update the paradigm if I figure out more of my biases. If I judge you and you think some way I've evaluated something is strange let me know because I'll throw that up in my paradigm. My goal is never to surprise anyone with a decision so if I am pretty consistently biased toward certain args then I'd like to know so y'all can have a heads up.

High school debate- I will be voting neg unless the aff convinces me that the plan CAN and should change the status quo. If solvency and an advantage is not extended into the last speech I will probably vote neg (see exceptions below). If the aff is going for an impact or perception based link turn you don't need to extend aff solvency. If you collapse to most link/internal-link turns/aff turns off-case arguments you MUST also extend aff solvency.

If the negative reads a counter advocacy or theory sheet and collapses to it then the aff only has to prove that it's preferable to the counter advocacy, that the counter advocacy doesn't solve, or that the theory sheet is not offensive against the aff.

I enjoy good clean theory debates with clash and warrants. If a theory sheet does not include all 4 parts and warranted arguments about how the theory sheet impacts the debate space I will be tempted to intervene. If you are planning to go for theory, theory sheets should be warranted in the first speech where they appear instead of being a list of buzzwords that get re-contextualized into arguments in later speeches.

I am almost always going to vote for the team who collapses to one or two synergistic arguments with impact framing over a team who points out every dropped argument on the flow without context for why it matters.

If I have to intervene because of a messy flow from both teams/little to no collapse done from either side I tend to vote negative on presumption UNLESS the negative has extended a counterproposal into their final speech in which case presumption flips aff.

Speaker points/rank are assigned based mostly on who wins and then who made the debate the most clear and accessible (including to your partner). Condescending behavior towards partners who might not be as experienced is the fastest way to lose speaker points/rank.

I prefer Stock Issues (I don't love T arguments unless necessary), but if the round moves that way.

CPs are ok, but running a K will be lost on me.

Ok with speed but I prefer not to see it unless necessary

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

If email chain: lmichaelDB8@gmail.com

Washburn Rural Highschool '20 (China, education, immigration, arms sales)

Washburn University '24 (NFA-LD) (immigration, forever wars, campaign reform, nukes)

Assistant coach at Washburn Rural Highschool and Washburn University (AI topic)

Hello! My paradigm is a living document as I realize that I actually do have opinions about debate that change every once in a while

I spent most of my debates going for theory, Das and impact turns. Most of how I view debate is informed through an NFA-LD perspective as that is what I dedicated most of my debate career to learning. That being said, most of my opinions about arguments are the same in policy because while the format is different structurally, arguments are largely the same. I can give you advice on how to weigh your impacts against your opponents but, I’m not really sure what the perfect 2nr looks like.

I have an APD which makes it extremely hard for me to understand people who yell while they spread. I know there isn’t really a bright line on that but, if you think this might be you then I would err on the side of yelling less so I’m able to understand you and I will clear you if it’s an issue. I would also really appreciate it if for tags and analytics you slowed down by like 50% so that I can get a clear understanding of the thesis of your arguments before hearing the warrants because sentence fragments without contexts are incomprehensible.

Please don’t say my name in your speeches.

General Views

Tech > Truth

It’s more important to me that you debate how you want to rather that over adapt to my preferences and debate poorly

An extension of an argument is not “they dropped this card”. I need you to extend warrants and for you to extend every part of an argument you’re going for (Uq, Link, I/L, Impact etc.). I want to be able to follow your logic chain.

I am not in a position to judge the character of people in the early stages of their lives, I will not vote on anything that asks me to do such.

Be nice to your opponents. This is a fun game that we play with our friends on weekends, it’s likely not that deep.

Paraphrasing is not evidence. I will evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics

Please collapse unless you have a good strategic reason to not.

I care about impact and warrant comparison a lot.

I won’t disregard an argument as new unless someone points it out. The exception is the final rebuttal of the debate

I like to see that you’re having fun debating. I am more receptive to arguments that others would label “troll”. I read my fair share of wipeout and “frivolous” SPEC shells just because I thought they were interesting because debate is a games are supposed to be fun.

The rest is… debatable

T/Theory

I think that theory arguments should have an interp, a violation, standards and voters. In NFA these should be in the speech the theory is read and I’m not sure what the norms are in policy, so I’ll adapt to you. What these things look like is up for interpretation.

I think most interps are arbitrary and self-serving, convince my yours is the least and is good for debate.

Reasonability is a question of if your interp creates a reasonably debatable topic not that I, the judge, should look at the aff and determine if it’s reasonably topical

DAs

I like Das that have links that are specific to the aff function. Topic DA vs biggest aff on topic is a fun and valuable debate to participate in.

CPs

I don’t think I’ve been in enough process counterplan debates to think they are evil yet but, I’ve heard the arguments for why they are and can be convinced so in a debate.

I generally think that condo is good and necessary to improve critical thinking skills. In LD condo becomes less good and necessary because of one sided time constraints but nobody really abuses this and I’m not really sure why.

Ks on neg

I understand the thesis of most common Ks (Cap, Set Col, Security, psychoanalysis etc) but outside of that my knowledge is quite limited. I will for sure vote for other Ks but only if you make it so I understand it by the end of the debate. I would err on the side of over explaining your links, impact(s) and how your alt functions. I also, generally, believe that aff teams should be able to weigh the aff. Otherwise, why are we here.

Ks on the aff

I’m probably not great for you. I find topicality/fwk with a good limits/clash standards very persuasive. This does not mean that I will not vote for you but, you must be exceptional at answering T.

Everything is an impact if it’s framed that way

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural ‘22

Michigan ’26

Coach for TAS, OCSA, and Washburn Rural

Judging

I will decide debates purely on my flow and the words I hear you speak. Prioritizing dropped arguments will be the best and quickest way for me to vote for you, and I will be more likely to decide on small technical errors, especially if you point them out or make them relevant.

If my flow is not sufficient to decide an argument I will look at evidence, whether it is because:

1. The flow is too close, i.e., no dropped arguments, lack of impact calculus, the debate is two ships passing by, etc.

2. The line-by-line is a dispute over evidence, whether quality or applicability.

If you predict debates coming down to this, provide a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and name specific authors or cards for my decision. This metric can include recency, expertise, causality, citations, etc. If a metric is never set, I will favor better-highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness.

I will try my hardest to flow, judge, and make the best decision possible, but I am imperfect. My biggest flaws that you can quickly adapt to are:

1. Typing. I attempt to flow cross-ex and transcribe every speech, but the combination of debaters blitzing through blocks at 300 WPM, typos, and debaters talking over each other means I miss 5-10% of text per debate. I do not think I have ever missed an argument in its entirety, but it would behoove you to be clear and flowable. Even when I miss things, I will remember the context and the surrounding words, but that is not as reliable as the words on my flow.

*A lot of debates I've judged, especially clash and competition debates, have vital moments and/or round deciding moments in cross-ex where specific phraseologies are used or concessions are made. Making cross-ex's matter and making cross-ex flowable (not talking over each other, shouting, etc.) is best.

2. Knowledge Gaps. I try to stay in tune with wikis, argumentative trends, the news, and core topic themes, but there is a lot I do not know about. Things I have learned about in my time judging without much prior knowledge or personal debate experience include interest rates, Erdogan’s political trouble, the racism paradox, the many ways humans could survive nuclear war, laches, textual topicality, and the barebones of random philosophies. While most debates do not require an in-depth knowledge of individual issues, the best debates and debaters do, and I will try to match that. If it turns out that I am a moron, over-explaining different arguments could benefit you, i.e., speeding through moral philosophy and hypotheticals at max speed is a way to win, but probably not the way to win.

Both can be easily overcome with clear, precise, technical debating and having a more explanatory narrative than the other team. While I appreciate and reward technically proficient debaters, making my decision come down to the second half of subpoint D of subpoint 11 at 300 WPM is not ideal.

Here is my decision-making process proper if this helps you structure final rebuttals:

1. I will almost always start deciding debates where the debaters tell me to start, i.e., in framework debates, most debaters say to start on fairness as an impact or ballot solvency, or if the 2NR is a DA and impact defense, I will start assessing the risk of impacts first. This also means picking and choosing arguments is better than shot-gunning arguments.

2. If neither rebuttal tells me where to start deciding, I will start where I think is the most logical point of contestation. Given the lack of (1), this is where I start most of my decisions.

3. I will highlight cells on my flow for what is dropped and/or relevant to deciding first-order issues and so forth until every cell with words in my cell is highlighted (if this includes reading cards, I will put relevant card authors/warrants next to those cells). This process also includes striking new cells that could not be traced back to the 2AR.

4. I try to decide based on the exact words said by debaters to avoid intervening.

Observations

The above should obviate everything below because none of my ideologies, thoughts about the debate, or biases will affect my decision, but here are my impressions that could matter to you:

1. Ideology. The critique has been less than 5% of my 2NRs since I joined the activity, but about half of the debates I judge are clash debates. Critical teams that impact turn framework have had the most success in front of me, especially because most 2ACs do not counter-define the resolution. Framework 2NRs with a robust defense of fairness combined with lots of no link + the AFF links more to their offense has had the most success. Both sides are better suited to specify and apply their blocks to the debate or 1AC at hand. Critiques on the NEG usually succeed when they moot the plan; every other version seems more fallible.

2. Side bias. I have been a 2N my whole career and think being NEG is hard on most topics. My default is infinite conditionality, but I have been persuaded otherwise in a handful of debates. 2Ns should make their condo blocks topic-specific and go for flexibility or arbitrariness. 2As should ensure their 1ARs say enough words so the 2AR is not new and needs a robust defense of dispositionality. My default is to judge kick. Most 2ACs and 1ARs commit egregious amounts of under-coverage on the case, and 2Ns should quickly point this out. I will quickly strike ‘new’ parts of the 2AR to protect the 2NR. Lastly, I find myself voting NEG frequently on turns case where I think most AFFs do not have a great answer to.

3. Argument quality. All arguments are fair game. Degradation in quality should be quickly dispatched with high-quality evidence or low-hanging responses. I do not feel distaste for impact turns like spark or ‘generic’ CPs like process. I think the AFF is favored in both debates, but the NEG normally has tricks that help them. Your speaks most likely will not suffer from deploying strategies like above. However, if your A-strat is hiding ASPEC in the middle of the 2NC, you may get the ballot, but your speaks will definitely suffer. Lastly, I think most debate impacts and internal links are non-intrinsic or rely on a reality distortion, so I am more amenable than most to smart analytical advantage CPs.

This is my second year as a coach and third or fourth year judging rounds. While I understand the technical side of debate, I still prioritize solid arguments. I'm fine with speed, but again prioritize the quality of the argument rather than its quantity.

Background: I debated for 4 years in high school (Saint Thomas Aquinas, 2007-2011) and 2 in college (KU 2012-2014). I coached and worked at debate camp during that time. I've judged occasionally for the last few years and have not done any work on the 2023 topic prior to the start of the season. I appreciate explanations of topic-specific acronyms/context and warranted explanations of theory/other debate jargon. I am quite familiar with domestic policy issues related to economic security, particularly at the state level related to tax policy, antipoverty programs, and early childhood programs.

I love debate and am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best. I appreciate thoughtful discussions that reflect hard work understanding the topic, detailed comparisons of evidence and warrants, strategic decisionmaking about which arguments to advance, and debaters who enjoy the activity and treat their competitors with respect. I really enjoy good case debate.

Compelling defense can definitely persuade me to assign zero risk to an advantage/disadvantage/other impact. I might be less compelled by try-or-die framing and more open to weighing incremental changes or systemic impacts than other judges with my background. I'm especially looking forward to what that looks like this year when discussing how economic policies could meaningfully impact people's daily lives.

Winning debaters should tell me how and why I should make my decision. If you were writing my RFD for me, what would it say?

If you have not described to me in some detail what your or your opponent's evidence says and why it matters I will not call for it or read it after the round.

Particularly for debaters who enjoy kritikal debate - If you find yourself using a lot of debate jargon when answering cross-ex questions or during your speeches, you might challenge yourself to simply communicate your argument in a way that someone who is not familiar with debate could understand.

I am happy to listen to arguments that do not involve plans. That said, when I debated, this was not the style of debate that I preferred or excelled at - currently, I strongly believe that both incremental policy progress and the activity of policy debate are worthwhile. I am here to listen to and do my best to judge whatever style of debate you enjoy best; please do help me understand why your proposed role of the ballot is a good one and preferable to the opposing team's interpretation. I expect that debaters who successfully take a less traditional approach to affirming the resolution will be prepared to create clear structure and organization as they respond to arguments and frame the debate.

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

vramasamy2@gmail.com

Updated: 12/7/2023

Hi! My name is Vijay - I debated for 4 years at Blue Valley North in Varsity from 2011-2015 (debated in semis at CFL, elims at NFL). I judged in Baltimore from 2016-2017 but really haven’t judged since then other than a few tournaments here and there (none on this topic so far). I’m currently a policy advisor in the Kansas Governor's Office.

I will try my best to keep up with you but keep in mind that I’ve been out of debate for a while. My number one thing is for you to read what you feel comfortable with. Also, be nice, be nice, be nice. There aren’t any arguments I won’t vote on, but I am most familiar with DAs, CPs, and other policy arguments. That being said, as long as you explain your K or other types of arguments well, you do you.

In terms of speed, I will let you know if you need to be more clear or if I need you to slow down. Explain your arguments and don’t rush through analytics. There are no types of Affs I won’t vote on. I like strong case debates and in-depth interactions on evidence.

This is a painfully short paradigm so if you have questions, please ask. Have fun - debate changed my life and the most important thing is to enjoy yourself. Also - be nice, be nice, be nice.

he/him

Don't be discriminatory against your opponents in any way. Doing so will be an instant loss. Just don't be mean to others (:

Hello!

I'd like to preface this by saying that I've only done HS debate for one year and am currently a part of the debate team at Washburn University, but that doesn't mean you should be scared to run arguments. I'm very well versed in stock issues, DAs, CPs, etc. Run whatever you want! I'll break down specific args below and how I believe I'd be most likely to vote:

T - I don't really know this topic too well, nor which affs are or aren't T, so PLEASE explain the violation to me. I do view T as a voting issue, so don't undercover it as the aff. I feel like it's always valuable to run and if you run it, don't half-bake it.

CP - CPs are always good but they are generally harder for me to vote on, especially against perms. A CP needs a really solid external net ben in order for me to truly consider voting on it

DA - I love a good disad, so throw whatever you want at me. A good disad can win the ballot if articulated well enough, especially if paired with the right counterplan

Condo - I usually pref neg on condo unless I see heavy abuse: anything more than 2 advocacies is overkill imo

K - This activity is a great place for different perspectives to clash and nowhere else is this more relevant than in K debate. I know the major main ones (cap k, afropess/antiblackness, fem ir), but I'll probably need to have my hand held and told what to vote on. I will still vote on a K even without an alt.

I'm okay with speed but please don't spread analytics if they're not on the doc

I am a firm believer of no judge intervention, and consider myself to be tech>truth.

All-in-all, debate how you want to debate and don't be scared to run whatever you want.

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

Hey everyone, feel free to ask questions before the round if anything is not clear in my paradigm. Additionally, if you find some of this information vague or confusing reading Tim Ellis's paradigm or Sean Duff's will give you plenty of insight into how I view debate.

Experience: I debated for 3 years at Washburn Rural High School. I'm the prototypical WARU debater in that I only ran policy affs and typically only read straight forward Kritiks when competing. I recently graduated from Wichita State University with a degree in Economics and History. Currently, I am a law student at the University of Kansas.

Technology/Speed: I'm fine with any speed typically, if you aren't clear I'll clear you once.

Preferences: The strategies most likely to win my ballot are policy oriented. Ideally, my favorite types of debates are relatively straight forward fast debates with lots of warranted analysis. On the affirmative, I'm a big fan of well put together and defensible aff's. However, I enjoy straight turning DA's and kicking the aff, if you have the chance take it. I think the most compelling neg strategy in debate is usually DA and case or DA and CP. That being said obviously theory/kritiks are viable ways to win but they are typically less enjoyable unless they include intelligient in round debate and not just blocks.

Framework: I think fairness is extremely important in debate. Plan-less affirmatives are more compelling to me if they are in the direction of topic and allow for substantial neg ground. Aff should focus on their impacts and how they engage with education in the round and why that outweighs fairness or why fairness doesn't matter. Case debate even without specific evidence is helpful in these rounds when it comes to understanding the desirability of the aff. I would say plan-less aff vs kritik rounds are likely be a jumbled mess and confuse me unless it is contextualized well and is fairly straight forward.

Topicality/Theory: Typically, I believe T is a question of competing interpretations. When evaluating interpretations I tend to lean towards models of debate that provide fairly equitable neg and aff ground. Also, when going for a terminal impact on T, I think fairness tends to be the most persuasive IF there is further explanation about why fairness matters in regards to education. On most theory arguments I default to reject the arg not the team but it is possible to win my ballot on conditionality. Spec debates are exceptionally lame. Reasonability is not a real argument if it is not elaborated on.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with most Kritik's, however I am not as familiar with what I'll call identity Kritik's. This does not mean you should never go for one of these arguments. Kritik literature often fascinates me but I don't think its very often both sides are able to have a meaningful debate on it. If you are able to intelligently discuss the merits of the Kritik beyond the tag lines I will be much more receptive. I think alts are under utilized in many kritik debates and I tend to enjoy the debate more if the neg goes for the alt instead of just framework and a link. However, if you do go for the alt its important I get an explanation how the alt resolves at least portions of the aff and also the mechanisms of how the alt functions. Contextualized specific links are extremely important to me in this style of debate. Link of omission=no link

DA/CP/Case: This is the style of debate I prefer, the rebuttals should clearly outline the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the aff. If no impact analysis is done I will not be happy. Never underestimate the value of case arguments, going for solvency or focusing on internal links of the aff is more persuasive than generic impact defense. Counter plans are an essential aspect of debate that challenge the desirability of the aff. Conditions counter plans are kind of up in the air I can be persuaded either way. Consult counter plans I think are almost always cheating, you definitely need to focus on how the CP textually and/or functionally competes if you're going for this kind of CP. Delay CP's are cheating and if that fact is identified by the other team I will not vote on it. Please keep in mind there are multiple parts of a DA required to win a round. Without uniqueness, link, internal link, and an impact I cannot vote on your DA even if it is dropped most likely.

***My suggestion for you is to do what you are good at or what is fun. Too often in rebuttals negative teams will go for what the aff has done the worst on instead of what the neg has done the best on. This is a mistake. Keep in mind you are playing to win, not playing to watch the other team lose.***

Lastly, be nice and have fun. If you have more experience than the team across from you trust me I'll know, there is no need to be mean and make the round less enjoyable for everyone. I don't want to hear you talking during your opponents speeches. Probably the most annoying thing for me to see in debate are when debaters are overly emotional or condescending with body language during opponents speeches.

Very infrequent judge, I did debate in High School, judged throughout college and post-grad.

I am employed as a Data and Policy analyst, be as technical policy-wise as you wish. I am not an expert on debate, so be clear. Have fun!

Updated: December 8th, 2023.

If you want to look @ what I used to judge like, feel free to. I'll use some of this as a reference to when I'm judging, but keep in mind this paradigm is now 4 years old. Also a bit cringe-worthy.

---------------------------------------

Ryan Reza

Debated Policy @ Washburn Rural HS (2014-2018)

Lover of food and liberalism and Tim Ellis

Email: RyanReza12@gmail.com

Updated: 9/7/2019

What's up! First off, don't be rude in round! If you're outrageously rude in round it will be very hard to win my ballot. Be nice, and have fun. Debate is an activity where everyone should be enjoying their time, that is why it was created. Not for you to flaunt around your arrogance.

General

-Tech over truth, must have warranted arguments.

-Debate arguments that you are most comfortable with!

-I won't do your work for you

-Use CX to your benefit, I'm a big fan

-If you have non cringy puns in your intros I respect you more

-I don't know a lot about this topic yet, so explain acronyms you might use or specific theories etc. Else I won't know whats happening probs

Speed

Listen I'm a little out of the whole speed thing. I am going to assume you're faster than I was in HS, however, if you are clear I will be able to follow along. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". If you do not become clear after I have said it, I'll wait a couple seconds then stop flowing.

Theory

-Reject the arg, not the team for all instances besides maybe condo

--For Condo there should be some pretty heavy in round abuse, and you have to prove it to me. Don't just read blocks, use your head.

T

I'm a fan of topicality. But because I'm lazy and Tim worded it well enough here is an excerpt from his paradigm

Topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability is an uphill battle for me, but I find myself being more persuaded by it as neg teams get worse and worse at extending an impact to their T argument. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull, and it will take a pretty egregious violation or a crush of a spec debate for me to vote against someone for not specifying agent, funding, etc.

Thank you for listening to Tim's ted talk

FW

Ha I'm not too familiar with this aspect of debate. If you run an aff w/o a plan text that is perfectly fine. All you have to do is explain it to me and why your standard of debate is better for the activity and whatnot. If you just give me depth less arguments about how debate sucks now and the USFG is bad then it will not be an easy ballot to win. I will most likely lean negative in these types of debates, because fairness typically aligns towards the neg in these debates. But the negative team needs to do work if they want to win. Having offense on case and on top of that adding external impacts is important. Don't just throw together BS arguments at the end of the round, you'll need to do work to win.

Regardless, you do you. Explain your arguments, answer the other team's. You'll gain a ballot. Probably.

Kritiks

I am not to well versed in K literature, however, that does not mean I won't vote on it. Traditionally, if the team does a good job of explaining the world of the kritik and how the kritik is good, then they will be fine. If you read a K just to confuse your opponents, you will also confuse me.

-I think you should try and explain to me how the K looks in the debate, whether that is the post plan implications or whatever is happening in the round.

-Explain the alt well. That is probably important. Having good links to the aff is a plus, if it is a bunch of SQUO stuff it won't be very convincing.

-If the neg goes for FW be sure to explain the argument throughout the debate. And have a specific interpretation for me to vote on.

DAs

Big fan. Big fan. Big fan. I love me a good Disad.

-Try and have specific Links

-Politics DAs are pretty good. They might not make sense a lot of the time but you know

-Be sure to cover Case along with the DA. That is a pretty spicy combo in my eyes

-Have a nice internal link chain. I wanna know why doing the aff causes the world to explode into a ball of fiery doom

-Not too sure what else to say. Explain the world of the aff and how the DA trumps all Aff benefits

CPs

CPs are good. CP + DA is always good. I'm not super technical and informed on CP theory but:

-Delay CPs, probably bad

-Consult/Conditions CPs, def bad unless they have a specific solvency advocate

-Cut the other team's solvency advocate and make it into a CP. That is pretty spicy.

-Word PIC's are annoying

Speaker points (I'm still figuring this out so it could be different in the future and whatnot)

29.4+ -- Straight fire (One of the best I've seen)

29-29.3 -- Speaker Award at the tournament

28.6-28.9 -- Good, no complaints in terms of speaking ability (Above Average/Average - comments will determine)

28.0-28.5 -- Didn't do anything distinctly "wrong", critiques here and there about issues (A bit below average - you're getting there)

27s -- Dropping arguments, ending speeches early, etc. (Needs improvement - but hey you'll get there)

If you get anything below a 27 it means there was something that did not belong in the debate. Meaning rudeness, cheating, etc.

Idk other stuff that is probably important

Don't just say random debate words. Have warrants for every argument you make. BE CLEAR for analytical blocks. Have fun.

-1AR must be fire. It's a requirement

-Make jokes. If they are bad I will dock you speaker points (-.5 per joke), however, if they are good you will get additional points (+.5)

Reminder don't be awful in round.

I have 8 years of debating experience and currently compete in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com

This activity should be centered around debaters, not judges, so it's the judge's responsibility to adapt to the debaters, BUT judges will always have preconceived notions of debate, so it is strategically beneficial for debaters to adapt to judges as well. By this I mean I will do my best to make a decision based on what the debaters make the round about, but knowing my opinions of debate could be the difference between a win and a loss in close rounds.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to.

I really like unique arguments, even if they are kind of silly.

On specific arguments

T/theory- I will pull the trigger on theory so fast. Just PLEASE make sure you have all four parts of the shell, including a CLEAR interpretation. Something like "Condo bad" is not an interp.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die often makes sense.

Disads- Generic links are good. Specific links are better.

CPs- Love em. Presumption flips aff.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do). I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in cap and Baudrillard. I have yet to see a good psychoanalysis K.

K affs- You can read a K aff, but you need to have a really good reason for not being topical. In great rounds, I often find it hard to evaluate the K aff v Framework debate because I genuinely find both sides of this argument incredibly convincing.

Sliding scale to illustrate my views of some things:

*These are simply my prior held beliefs. If you make arguments one way or another I will evaluate them as I would evaluate anything else.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good---X-------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

Tech--X--------Truth

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has value. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you. If you have any questions feel free to ask before round!

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and your objective shouldn't be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

Email: Mtaylor@silverlakeschools.org

General:

I really appreciate nice humans. Rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. behavior will not be tolerated.

Overall, I like debate...in all its forms. If you want to win something in front of me just do the work to make it matter.

I think the distinction of "Tech>Truth" is a false dichotomy. I can hold you to high tech standards and also expect those arguments to be warranted. Good Debaters can and should be able to do both. My evaluation of the round will favor that mixture.

Some general thoughts...

Don't flow from the speech doc. Every debate round I have judged for the past 6 years on the circuit has pretty much been won by the team who was flowing properly. When you aren't flowing, you aren't able to see the round properly, you miss really important things like turns and cross applications, your line-by-line is terrible, and you reduce the debate to a bunch of overviews that don't help me decide anything.

I can handle most rates of speed fairly comfortably, if I am not able to understand I will say clear. Obviously, don't race through theory or any blocks of really important analysis that you are going to want me to vote on later.

The 2AR/2NR should be telling me when, what, where, why and how. If you want me to vote for something tell me explicitly how to evaluate it and why it matters. "even if" arguments are really important in your framing of the round in rebuttals. Contextualize the arguments for me.

Topicality

Blocked out blurbs about ground and predictability are not going to do much in terms of showing me why this argument is important. I hold T to the same standards of analysis and impact development as all other arguments.

Disads

Generic is fine...but in my old age I am starting to really prefer specific links and I love a really unique/specific link story. Really good analysis and inference can take a mediocre DA and make it pretty good, so take the time to do the specific analysis.

CPs

In a world where a lot of our big topics become overly generalized by the affirmative team without much attention to rule of law or specifics, I think the CP has a lot of value. I like a well thought out plan text with good Solvency. What ever happened to dispositionality? I don't think affs utilize their cases enough when answering and I think that there needs to be a lot more debate on the CP proper than what currently happens. I will listen to theory, but I generally don't vote unless there is evident abuse.

Ks

Don't expect that I can do much work here for you in terms of lit; I just don't know enough to be able to make those connections in my head. I'm fairly familiar with Neolib, Cap, Set Col and Fem, the rest I'm really going to need you to slow down and give me some analysis. I was not a K debater in school, but that was mostly due to a lack of exposure, not necessarily preference and I really enjoy the critical side of debate. Context is important. It is much easier for me to vote Neg on the K when the negative can show that their alt resolves the links to the K and takes time to contextualize how the Alt functions in the world of the Aff.

Updated 4/15/25

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS) and now debate with K-State. If you want to learn more about K-State debate or K-State Camp, feel free to reach out! or check out the following links:

Debate

Debate Camps and Clinics

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in policy debate

Top 10 @ state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in pf, info, extemp.

Debate

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 9/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. I will almost always default tech > truth, meaning I will listen to any argument you present to me, if it comes down to it refer to how I would vote on specifics.

T/Theory:

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you actually EXPLAIN them.

NEG - I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T/FW:

One of my favorite debates. Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best. I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

NEG: For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. While I think it is the best strategy for the negative, it doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or things you can read. I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it.

AFF - For the aff, I like counter-interps, Impact Turns and DAs. Again, just because I like them doesn't mean it's the only arg you can read. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

DAs:

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.Do impact calc, the earlier the better.

NEG - I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action.

AFF - I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans:

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and International fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

NEG - I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve.

AFF - I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

As a 2A my literature knowledge is very specific to orientalism however I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are fem, cap, security, and obviously orientalism. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

NEG - I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework, and they don't read 'we meet' doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that.

AFF - I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic in some way. Refer to my K lit base above to know where I stand on some lit.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

NEG - I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy.

AFF - I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask! :)