please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

Email: sivanibv@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence Free State High School for 3 years, mainly in the open division. I'm comfortable listening to any of your arguments, but I have not judged any debate rounds this year, nor do I have extensive prior knowledge on this topic. Therefore, please clearly explain any of your more advanced arguments.

In terms of speed, I would prefer slower rounds because that is what I am used to from my debate experience. However, if you speed up and I think you are no longer clear, I will let you know and make it obvious that I have stopped flowing. As long as I am flowing, that means I'm keeping up with you!

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round starts! Most importantly, please be respectful to your team members and opponents during the round. I will not look favorably upon any rude behavior or offensive arguments made, and that will be reflected in the speaker points.

I prefer an email chain over speechdrop, but I've accepted that's a losing battle at this point. Just add me to whatever you end up doing.

She/her.

My background: I debated for Lawrence Free State for three years, but did not debate in college. I'm currently an assistant coach at Free State.

General preferences

Read whatever arguments you're comfortable with, I care more that you know what you're talking about than that you're reading an argument I personally like. There are only two exceptions to this rule:

1. I don't particularly want to listen to arguments about death or suffering being good. If you read those arguments I'll attempt to judge them--but I'll also be pretty stressed and annoyed at you, so don't be surprised if I'm not able to evaluate the debate very well.
2. Bigotry of any kind--racism, transphobia, ableism, etc.--isn't OK, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Speed is fine, but make sure to enunciate on tags. Most of my debate experience was in fast rounds, but it's been a while since I've had to flow those rounds, so maybe consider starting out at like 90% speed.

I don't have a preference for policy vs. the K/reject the res affs/whatever other "controversial" arguments people talk about. Other than the two exceptions listed above, I don't really care that much what you read.

The 2NR/2AR should tell me the reason/reasons that I should vote for you. Line-by-line is important, but you need to be able to explain which arguments matter and why. The winner of the debate is the team that convinces me their advocacy is better, not the one who showed off more raw technical skill.

A corollary to that is that comparative impact calculus isn't only for disad/case debates. It's just as important to tell me why your impacts to T outweigh theirs, or why the solvency deficit to the counterplan outweighs the net benefit, for example.

An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. That means you tell me what is true, why it's true,and why that matters.

tl;dr read whatever you want, however you want. Convince me your advocacy is better than your opponents' and I'll vote for you. Winning an argument isn't enough, you need to explain why that argument matters more than the ones you're losing.

These things aren't as important, but could end up affecting how I evaluate the round:

T

Topicality is underrated. Don't just read blocks, take the time to explain your internal links and tell me why your vision of debate is preferable to theirs. I think fairness is probably an internal link and I tend to lean towards competing interps as a framing question, but I can be convinced otherwise on either of those questions.

Disads

Take the time to contextualize the link evidence to the aff. Even if you're reading generic evidence, you should still do the work to explain why it's relevant in this specific situation.

Comparative impact calculus is a huge help to me at the end of the round. The team who does more of it will probably have an easier time winning my ballot.

Counterplans

This is the argument I went for the least when I debated. I'm pretty much 50-50 on the question of whether PICs and sketchy process counterplans are cheating. I'll vote on theory args, but I'm not predisposed to do so.

Competition debates where each side reads a million definitions of the word "it" and doesn't impact them out are annoying and I never really got the point to them. Impact out severance and intrinsicness (?) args, and tell me what the world of the perm looks like. It's a test of competition, not an advocacy.

The K

I went for Cap a lot in high school, I read a fair bit of theory/K lit stuff in college. I'll probably understand the claims of your K at a top level, but I won't know the details. I'll know if you're just using buzzwords without understanding what they mean.

Other stuff:

The debate isn't over until I sign the ballot, and until that happens there's time to make a comeback. Don't underestimate the value of being creative and flexible.

I really don't want to tell you to clear. Please don't make me do that.

Signposting, both before a speech and during the line-by-line, is invaluable and will make my job flowing the debate dramatically easier. I'll be annoyed if you don't do it.

If you tell me "it's sent" and I open your email and it contains a PDF attachment, I might cry.

I'll try to follow whatever the norm is for speaker points at a given tournament. In general, expect between 28 and 29 points, with 28.5 being average for the division that you're in. Above a 29 mean I think you have a good chance of doing well in elims.

Debate experience: Competed Jr & Sr years of high school (MANY years ago) with some success. This is my 3rd year judging debate, and have also judged forensics/Lincoln-Douglas.

Preferences:

Not a fan of speed reading. A quick pace is great, but more words/minute don’t equal a better argument.

Don’t care for counter plans. I see them as a diversionary tactic to avoid the real debate. I’ll judge fairly if a team chooses to go that route, as it’s a legal maneuver, but not that’s my personal preference.

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but lean toward policy making at this point.

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

TL;DR:

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. I am becoming more comfortable as I judge more rounds, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Intellectual Property specific:

A lot of this topic can be pretty jargony, so try to keep it understandable and accessible for everyone in the round. Great that you understand it, but if you are not able to explain it to the other team or the judge that is not ideal. It is not very great for education/competition if you are winning simply because the other team does not know what you are talking about.

General Thoughts:

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

impact calc >>>

judge instruction/signposting >>>

be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone

Argument Preferences:

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out. When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions about my argument preferences, though, feel free to clarify before the round. I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Speed:

Speed is good, but make sure it is clear. If I did not catch the argument because you spread through your pre-written analytics, then it will probably not be on my flow or on my ballot. If you want to ensure that I catch it make sure to slow down a little or really signpost and draw attention to it.

Also, if you are going to read something that is not on the doc maybe slow down a little to give time to pick up what you are putting down. I think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then the arguments are probably not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

Former assistant coach for Lawrence High for two years. Debated at Olathe South for 4 years.

Updated 12/7/24

General Preferences

Do what you do best. There are very few arguments that I hate on a deep level or am in love with. I'm usually more comfortable with policy arguments but am familiar with K literature.

I've only judged sporadically this season, so starting off at under your top speed and working up to it would be helpful.

For me, your first priority should be on ensuring you have solid analysis in the debate. You can have the best evidence and arguments that could truly be deciding factors, but if the rebuttals consist of you just extending a bunch of cards or shallow one-line summaries of analytics from the constructives, you're not going to win. Tell me how the argument functions and why it's true. Without this work, that argument doesn't really exist on the flow to me.

More than anything please be nice. Snarkiness is awesome but there's a line between funny and just mean. Mistakes happen and I believe this is a fantastic space to educate each other. However, blatant sexism, racism, and any other -isms will not be tolerated. If in doubt, don't say it in the round, and let's have a conversation after.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can matter very little. On the flip side, if you have an amazing case that you pull through and defend you can afford to risk linking to a DA. That doesn't mean don't run any off-case or feel free to undercover a DA, but having a great case debate can be very beneficial.

DAs: DAs are great. If they're generic, that's fine. If they're case-specific, even better. That being said, explain your internal link chain. Don't just spend every speech telling me why extinction is awful.

CPs: I think CPs are fun, but they do have to be competitive. I won't do the work for the aff, but if they perm it and it's very clearly not competitive, it'll be hard for you to come back from that.

Ks: Like I said, I don't have a super in-depth knowledge of specific kritiks but I do have a decent background in a good portion of philosophy. If you explain the basic thesis of the K, we should be good. That's not an excuse to use a bunch of weirdly long words that sound "kritiky" and then assume I know what you meant. Just like any other argument, give me warrants and analysis. Please tell me what the alt does! I'm all for unique alternatives, but I need to understand exactly what is going to happen.

K Affs/ Non-traditional Affs: I'm definitely open to non-traditional affirmatives, but I do tend to believe the affirmative has to be in the direction of the topic and have some kind of plan/ advocacy statement. What exactly that looks like is up to you, I just need to understand what exactly you're advocating for. If you aren't in the direction of the topic/ you reject the resolution, I'll definitely listen and keep an open mind. However, it tends to be pretty easy for negative teams to win on framework.

I haven't judged many non-traditional affs so I can't tell you if I lean more towards framework or the aff, but I like both so you have a good shot either way. For framework, you can definitely argue that they have to relate to the topic or have a stated advocacy, but saying they should be excluded entirely is not going to go over well.

Theory: Not my favorite thing, but I'll always listen to it. It gets really annoying when seven different blippy theory arguments are read and then because the aff didn't respond to the sixth standard on you fifth theory argument that you blew through at the speed of light the entire round ends up coming down to that argument. A couple are totally fine, but more than that gets confusing.

Topicality: I like T, especially when it plays in with other arguments. It's always a voter, never a reverse-voter.

Framing: It seems like it's becoming more and more common to have pretty extensive impact framing debates. That's totally cool and I think it's a really interesting debate to be had. However, just reading a card that says probability first or extinction first doesn't make it true. Just like any other argument, give me the warrant and analysis.

Overall, run what you're good at and what you like. Make it the kind of round you want to have and I'll do my best to conform to it. With the exception of a few things, most of the stuff on here is pretty flexible if you explain a different perspective. Please ask me any other questions you have!

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp in the 2AR.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for advocacies with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Teams that choose to go for a criticism should spend time explaining the critique's theory in front of me in practical terms without jargon. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people well read in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

I am not a good adjudicator of high theory, psychoanalysis, or similar arguments.

I strongly prefer strategies that demonstrate why the AFF's plan should not happen. If I cannot identify a reason the AFF's MBI makes the world materially worse, then I am likely to vote AFF.

You should prioritize clarity over speed when debating in front of me. My flow has never been 'sharp,' so please keep that in mind when reading blocks, evidence, etc. 80%, or online-era speed, is probably a reasonable benchmark.

Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College

delliott@kckcc.edu

Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are afffected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.

I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.

Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!

I am a former high school debater and current assistant debate coach and English teacher, focusing on rhetoric. I am from the KC area, attending college at UW-Madison.

I am a flow judge, meaning I will be tracking the arguments made in the round on my flow sheet in a linear fashion. My judgment will primarily be based on what I can clearly identify from the flow, so it’s essential that debaters make their points in an organized and efficient manner. I will flow each argument and its respective responses as they happen, so clarity and organization are crucial for making sure I capture your argumentation correctly to determine which team's arguments are comparatively advantageous.

I was previously a debater at Olathe South and have judged numerous rounds in the past. I do default to a Policymaker judge but I am open to hearing most arguments.

I like a clean flow above all.

Speed: I can keep up with a more rapid pace but I want to hear a round that falls below the speed of spreading.

DA: The only thing here is that I expect a clean link chain.

CP: Will listen to any CP you want to bring, although it should allow for a two sided debate.

K: Wasn't much of a K debater when I was around but if you'd like to read one I will listen to it. However, if the flow is messy or hard to follow, it will fall further down on my reasons for voting NEG and could cost you the round.

Topicality: T is great. I will listen to any and all interpretations but if you're gonna go for it, go for it full bore.

Theory: I ran a few theory arguments myself in Highschool so nothing will really surprise me here but please, if you're going to go for theory as your main voter, go all in with plenty of blocking.

Case: I love a good case debate. Solvency turns are the best. Defending case arguments in the 1AC is important when it comes to whether or not I am voting AFF at the end of the day.

I'm a former high school policy debater and current litigator - I say this because my approach to judging debate has changed over the years given my professional experience. I'm more of an in between flow/lay judge now.

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

- I think political arguments, e.g. Republicans in Congress won't pass the plan, are annoying. As the judge I am the legislative, executive, and judicial branch, if I sign an affirmative ballot then Congress passed the plan, etc.

- Dropped arguments are not necessarily the winning ticket for me. You still need to explain/argue the point, clash, at least once, on their arguments. Just telling me to pull the argument through is annoying - at least explain why their silence on the matter is an issue.

- Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide.

- Keep to decorum and maintain a degree of candor with one another and me.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature and very much appreciate a well-constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. Strike to the core of their argument, and show me the underlying structural issues.

Theory/T- I am unlikely to vote on a cheap-shot theory argument unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. However, that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-I despise CPs, especially in JV and Open. I think they are used as cheap shots to catch inexperienced teams off-guard. I will NOT vote for these.

Ultimately, I'm approaching your round with few preconceived notions and expect you to give me well-structured arguments.

Former 4-year debater at McPherson High School

TLDR: Argumentation wise I'm fine with most anything. I was a 2NC myself so I really like on-case arguments and turns.

I weigh stock issues pretty heavily into my decision, but ultimately I'm tabula rasa, I'll default to stock issues though if not told what to vote for.

Speed

I am okay with speed as long as you are clear, signpost, and slow down when you read tag lines so I can understand when you are moving on to a new card. Also if you plan on going so fast that it's hard for me to understand I would recommend asking for my email and adding me to the email chain so I can see your evidence.

Kritiks

I was a traditional style of debater so I didn't run Kritiks often. The Kritiks I had experience running were Cap K, Federalism K, and Abolition K. Kritiks aren't my favorite argument, that said I'll listen to them and vote on them if run effectively. However, I'm not as likely to vote on a K as I am on case arguments, DA's, and Turns.

Theory/Vagueness

Theory and vagueness are arguments that I believe are run as a time suck 90% of the time, so ordinarily, I never vote on them, but I understand against certain cases it's necessary to run, so in those rare instances they will have an impact on my decision.

Topicality

Topicality is an argument that I think can be good, and win rounds, but if the Aff is obviously Topical don't bother running it, it's just a waste of time. I'd much rather hear another DA, solvency, or inherency attack, something that creates clash than I would a topicality argument.

Analysis

Analysis is something I believe should be present in every policy debate round. I don't want teams to go back and forth reading walls of text to me, I want analysis on your evidence, and clashing warrants as well.

Impact Calc

Impact calc is something I weigh heavily. In a close round the team with the better impact calc will get my ballot more often than not.

I can flow

He/Him

Assistant debate coach for Lawrence Free State (LFS), current KU student. Graduated from LFS in '22, debated all four years (fast debate sophomore year, KDC junior/senior). I don't debate in college.

Put me on the email chain: theezrajoseph@gmail.com

For debaters primarily competing in DCI/faster styles: your best bet is treating me as a flay judge. You can try spreading if you want to, but there is no guarantee that I will keep up/catch everything, especially if I'm flowing on paper. Obviously, that's on a spectrum, and you can be quicker than conversational if you want to be, but I almost certainly will not pick up analytics you're speeding through at 100%. I would love to say, "Go for whatever you're comfortable going for," but unfortunately for both of us, I went for disads/counterplans, so that's what I'm the most comfortable listening to. Again, you can try your critical affirmative/kritik in front of me, and I will do my best to adjudicate, but you're just increasing your likelihood of getting an RFD that you're unhappy with/doesn't make sense to you.

For debaters primarily competing in KDC/JV/novice: this is the style of debate I spent more time with, both competitively and from a judging standpoint. So, do whatever you're used to/comfortable with and I'll be fine. Things that will make me happy include using your flow, line-by-line debate, and impact calc + judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR.

General miscellaneous: full claims require a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will be flowing, and if I'm really on top of it and not running on fumes, timing prep as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I debated for four years at Washburn Rural High School and a year at KU. Previously an assistant coach.

Generally I evaluate in an offense-defense paradigm, but in rare circumstances I do believe that 100% defense is possible. I would generally prefer to see a team run arguments that they are good at rather than try to adapt to my specific paradigm and run arguments that they are less familiar with. With that being said, I do have some preferences.

If your speech contains content that may be disturbing, a trigger warning for judges and other competitors is appreciated. This warning should occur before your speech. You should also have a non-triggering version of your speech available. It is not okay to force another team to be triggered.

Generally I believe an affirmative should read a topical plan text. However, if you cannot articulate specific ground loss and education loss as a result of your violation, I find it hard to evaluate T. A strong discussion of why topicality should or should not be a voting issue is helpful, especially in the final rebuttals.

I also have trouble believing that one or two conditional positions are a reason to reject the team.

Thoughts on counterplans - Delay counterplans are almost always cheating unless timeframe is explicitly in the aff plan text. Consult counterplans seem to problematically assume that the plan that comes out of consultation resembles the original plan, though a specific solvency advocate or specific say yes evidence would be helpful with that. 50 state fiat seems questionable. At the very least, state flexibility arguments are wholly unpersuasive if your counterplan text requires uniform state action. PICs usually don't bother me. That is not to say I won't listen to or vote on a counterplan that seems like a cheating counterplan. It just means my threshold for theory arguments to reject it will likely be lower.

If the negative team goes for a counterplan, I generally believe that presumption flips aff. Judge kicking a counterplan seems extremely interventionary unless I have been told it is an option, and if the affirmative team tells me a good reason why I shouldn't I might not even be okay with judge kicking then.

Kritiks are usually okay, but they should be paired with arguments as to why the aff cannot or should not get to access their impacts. They are rarely an excuse to ignore the aff case.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Since debate rules are participant-created and constantly changing, I will do my best to judge the round based on those rules.

Typically, I will vote on classical, long agreed upon issues--things like inherency, significance of harm, topicality, solvency, Comparative Advantage/Disadvantage, etc.

I will vote on a Kritik if it is well argued and includes role of the ballot ,link, impact, and alternative. --it cannot be a last-ditch effort to salvage a losing round, so don't wait til last rebuttal to introduce your K.

I will flow the round.

I will be on my laptop and I will ask for the access codes for whatever dropbox type of thing you use, so I can get AFF plan plus all other evidence that's posted.

Because I will be flowing and looking at your citations, etc, I won't really be looking at the speakers. I also often wear polarized screen reading glasses that look like sunglasses, so you won't be able to make eye contact with me. You can look at whoever you want to look at; I probably won't notice.

After the round has concluded, I need to concentrate on decision making and ballot writing, so please. there's no reason to come up and introduce yourself again.

My background:

I debated for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit at Washburn University. I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years. I haven’t participated or judged debate in a few years but I’m sure It’ll just take me a minute to readjust.

Overview: I think that debate is a game. Do what you can justify.

Texts and Interpretations:

You can either provide me with a written copy of the text or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt/interp and repeat it. Not doing so can make debates impossible to judge and follow.

Thats really all I have for you. Good luck!

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021–2024)

Assistant Coaching at Olathe North, KCKCC (2024– current)

Formally assistant coaching at Lansing (2021–2024)

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

Jewell update* for strike purposes I’m Chris I debated at Kckcc I was a 2 time quarterfinalist at npda (23-24) I went for mostly big stick policy arguments or the cap k when competing. As a judge tho I have a lot of experience judging critical arguments (on the aff and neg) as well as big stick policy debates. This is my first tournament judging parli the rest of the paradigm is pretty specific to hs policy but it outlines how I evaluate arguments. If you have questions just ask in more than happy to answer despite however grumpy I may look!

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

Present your arguments in an organized manner and stay focus. I judge based on your ability to convince me that you have a solid argument, regardless which side you are on. Speak clearly and methodically to get your point across. Do not emphasize on speed for the sake trying to fit as many arguments as you can -- sometimes less is more and you minimize the risk of getting side tracked. Last but not least, have fun and good luck!

maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)

assistant coach at de soto

jeanninealopez@gmail.com

i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy arguments

i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over k's is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen, but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplan/disad strategies, so i know those best, but run what you know best

speed is fine only if you are clear

your speech is over once your timer goes off -- you can take a few words to finish a sentence, but anything else that you say isn't going to be on my flow

please ask questions if you have any

I’m an experienced debater who went to the 4A state tournament all three years that I debated and made it to Octafinals my final year. I’m well acquainted with the general rules and norms of debate, and my familiarity has come from many rounds.

While I have a lot of experience behind the podium, this is my first year judging. However, I understand the importance of my role and can assure all debaters that I will take everything discussed into consideration. I also understand that the resolution this year can skew into quasi-political arguments. Let it be known that my own beliefs will not influence any decision as a judge. Make your argument, present your evidence, and let your personality shine through. No argument is a bad argument as long as you can adequately support it.

Speak as fast as you want, but understand that speed reading important cards is not appreciated by me. Especially if it’s a card that you want to stick out. I’ll likely hear and Register most things, but I can’t guarantee this if you are speed reading. Obviously, don’t slow down like you’re talking to a child, but don’t do extreme speed reading to save time. It’s far better to make your point clear than speak too fast for the information to stick.

Roadmaps are IMPORTANT. This should be standard with every constructive speech. They’re also much appreciated for rebuttals.

Be confident, but do not be arrogant. It can be a fine line but arrogance never works in the favor of a debater. It’s one thing to know that you have the upper-hand and to get a little bit cocky, it’s quite another when it’s not that obvious and you get even more cocky. Everyone here is experienced. Act professional and act accordingly.

I’m a firm believer in the analogy that all it takes to sink a mighty ship is a small hole. The affirmative has had ample time to repair all holes in their case. That’s not to say that I favor the negative; I’m simply a believer in more substantive debates. I’m not opposed to listening to varying topicality definitions and debates, but if there is no inherent barrier then there is no case. If there is no solvency then there is no case, and so on. The more creative, but SUPPORTABLE, the better! I’m all for an out-there argument, but you need to have a way to support it.

Lastly, I just want to stress how importantly I take my role as a judge. Debate offered me a wonderful scholarship for school, and I fully understand that some of you may be in similar situations. The best team will get my vote and there will be a substantial explanation of my thought process.

Keep it professional…but keep it FUN! Debate is a fun activity. I genuinely miss it. Getting to this point is commendable, so be proud of yourselves and go out with a bang. Make the most of it and have a good time! May the best team win!

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. !!! Judge instruction + impact calc in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean. Dropped arguments don't automatically mean you win the debate if impact framing or something can negate my need to evaluate that argument.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. Most theory arguments outside of condo are a reason to reject the arg unless I'm told otherwise. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP/DA - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine but be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate. I find world of the aff versus world of the neg framing especially helpful in these debates.

Kritiks- I want a clear link in the 2nr. If you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the aff, the justifications need to be clearly outlined and you need to do impact calc on fw.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time.

K v K - I find ethos can more heavily influence my decisions in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Former nats circuit debater for NPDA, competed for Arkansas State and Missouri Western for a combined total of 3 years. 2018 Arkansas Collegiate Forensics State Champion.

I will evaluate only the arguments on the flow - I don't flow cross X.

I'm fine with speed, theory / framework, the K, and case debate

The best way to win my ballot is to tell me where to Vote.

I will vote for the easiest way out, use your rebuttal to tell me how to vote, frame the round.

I will vote on an apriori bases. If you tell me Topicality comes before case, I'll evaluate the T before case.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated] - based in NYC

Updated for: ??? - Sept '24 -Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

Not working in debate at the moment: I'm a big policy debate fan, but I am not actively coaching or judging. I still watch livestreams, read docs, follow tab and try to keep up as much as I can. That said, I have limited hobby time and I currently spend most of it playing Geoguessr [Blinky for WC 2024!]. I hope to pop in to judge one or two tournaments this year, but I no longer live near Kansas so there's less activity around me.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact. But economic collapse is also an impact, yet I'm willing to vote for DDev. The same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable - I can think of many exceptions where highly expressive speakers moved me and less emotive speakers lost me - yet it is a general trend. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

14 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI. Assisted/judged on a volunteer basis for both SME and Wichita East (KS, 2023-24).

Topic Experience (HS)

None. I have almost zero knowledge about this topic area.

Topic Experience (College):

None. I debated on many climate topics in the past though, so my lit knowledge and understanding about how these debates play out is pretty ok.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

AI

I have now unfortunately judged a debate where Chat GPT was used to write speeches. If you are considering this, I would highly suggest you don't. Chat GPT is not good at debate. If you think I won't be able to tell, you are wrong. I used to teach students who tried to pass off AI work as their own and I currently work in the AI space. AI is not good at writing speeches, it sounds inhuman, saccharine and ugly. And while AI might be great at a lot of things, it is quite bad at efficiency and pathos, two things that are key to balance when you are debating. You'll get horrible speaks. If somehow you managed to write and deliver a GPT-sounding speech on your own without AI assistance, that might actually be worse.

What I love about this activity is the multitude of different ways you can approach it. Nearly every one is legitimate, but if you choose this one, I will be sad.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I generally adhere to a Stock Issues paradigm. I prefer on-case arguments, which I believe are most likely to result in a well-developed, back-and-forth debate between the teams. I typically dislike most Kritiks but will listen (if I have to) – though many often feel like a game a team plays when it doesn’t know how to argue on-case. I want roadmaps and signposts. If arguments get dropped, call them out. If you aren’t paying attention, don’t expect me to for you. In other words, it’s your job to tell me why to vote for you. But do so accurately and truthfully. Do not lie.

I was a high school debater in the days we pulled around big tubs of files. Cards were actual cards. I will use Casedrop but don't assume that I am reading your cards. And if you don't read them, I won't consider them. I flow, and while I can handle some speed, you may need to slow your speech if you notice that I’m not following. If I can’t hear the arguments you make, I can’t understand them, and I can’t vote for them. Please be courteous and professional.

I’ve been an attorney for nearly two decades. Debate played a critical role in preparing me for my future profession, and honestly, it’s just a lot of fun. Enjoy yourselves!

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

***UPDATE FOR 2024 NSDA QUALIFIER: I will be returning to paper flows for this tournament. Please slow down, especially on tags and analytics and especially with paragraph-long tags. Treat me as a fast f/lay judge or slowest flow judge. Aff, you'll probably want to read your lay aff. Neg, you'll probably want to limit off-case positions.***

TLDR: I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. If you debate at that speed, I ask that you slow down to about a five on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Overall, I tend to assess the round as a test of policy. In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. See immediately below for a summary of my default convictions, reduced to sometimes false binaries, followed by additional detail.

Speed |-------X--| Slow/conversational

Argument quantity |-------X--| Argument quality

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

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

Condo |----X-----| Unconditionality

Topicality: Unless aff wins a model debate (see K, below), I believe Aff must present a prima facie case that represents the resolution in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on violation, I'm likely not to care a ton about a debate on limits, fairness, etc. I WILL listen to the Aff's assertions that T "isn't a thing," but that isn't my core belief and Aff has an uphill battle to convince me otherwise.

Counterplans. I debated in an era in which counterplans were rare. Over the years, I've grown more comfortable adjudicating these arguments, but I'm not a fan a slew of blippy 1 card "counterplans" or Aff reciting a bunch of blurby perms in 2AC. If you just read a string of "Perm Do Both. Perm Do the CP then P." etc., I'm not likely to give a lot of weight to the perm attempt. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity--remember that?); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. My favorite rounds to judge don't include any K position; I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or rhetoric, but its your round, and I understand that some teams want to debate the K. So I'll hear you out (provided you really explain the lit), but I need to hear a clear and compelling Alt. and K advocates must thoroughly explain, and win on, role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot. I'm also closest to a truth-over-tech judge in the K space, meaning plausibility matters most to me when evaluating these arguments. I disfavor K Affs; my default view is it is the affirmative's job to represent the resolution. If that's what you want to read, I'll do my best to evaluate it, but if you have a back-up policy aff, now would be the time to read it.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, or you're going for a tricks, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Honestly, I tend to be old-fashioned in that I like a debate round with a good solid case that is argued. I will listen to counter plans and DAs but they do need to be applicable to the case.

I do not mind some speed but I still like there to be some emphasis on speaking skills and presentation.

I will vote on Topicality if it truly is applicable but make sure you are doing T instead of significance.

I have voted for K before but it needs to be good, applicable and succinct.

Be polite, logical and please do not change history.... For example don't say something such as World War II was the only world war. Doesn't the two imply a one?

If you have questions, ask. I always forget something.

Anything goes (I love K though)

anthonyracy@gmail.com

I debated through high school and into college and had success at a regional and national level in Lincoln Douglas and hold a state championship in Extemp. I earned the NFL Double Ruby for my efforts. I did not go to high school in Kansas so the focus on Policy Debate is something I don't love for the students but I do enjoy judging and providing constructive feedback because I believe participating in Forensics really more than any of the classes I took in high school has helped me to be successful in my career. I believe not only the public speaking skills but critical problem analysis and evidence based argument skills learned in debate and speech events like extemp are invaluable life skills.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making and value framework. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be current and topical as well as strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks. Make sure you can pronounce all the words in your evidence and can articulate it clearly.

I would rather you make a clear argument at a slower pace than to deluge me with a bunch of evidence and facts at such a rapid rate that it is nearly incomprehensible.

I want clear link stories and strong rational impact calculations. I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues and definitions.

Please signal clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments. I don't look at the written speeches and make my decision solely on your ability to communicate your case and evidence verbally in the room.

Courtesy is important to me. To your partner, opponents and to the judges.

BIO

Litigation Attorney. Former speech kid and theatre artist. Current assistant debate, mock trial, and speech coach at SME.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Policymaker with a high emphasis on speaking skills.

Be respectful in the round. Don’t ever tell me that an opponent has no idea what they are talking about--that’s not professional nor appropriate. They do know what they are talking about and so do you.

Better arguments over many arguments. Don’t spread.

Tell me WHY this stuff is important in your own words—don’t just read the cards. Your job is to advocate, be an advocate for why your plan resolves or the other teams does not.

Similarly, I only use speech drop to help flow the round—I won’t read your cards. This is a speech activity so you need to tell me what the cards say.

I view everything that is said as a “record” of the debate. If you say it, it is “coming into evidence” and therefore part of my analysis and judgment. This includes CX. (See comment above about me not reading your cards.)

Common sense solutions to real issues prevail over esoteric rhetoric.

SPEECH GUIDE (INCLUDING CXD)

“Be brief, be pointed; let your matter stand
Lucid in order, solid, and at hand;
Spend not your words on trifles, but condense;
Strike with the mass of thought, not drops of sense;
Press to the close with vigor, once begun,
And leave, (how hard the task!) leave off, when done

Keep, then, this great precept ever near;
Short be your speech, your matter strong and clear;
Earnest your matter, warm and rich your style,
Severe in taste, yet full of grace the while,
So may you reach the loftiest heights of fame;
And leave, when life is past, a deathless name.”

- Joseph Story, Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States

I haven’t debated or judged in a really long time! I graduated in 2010 from SME and then debated at ku for a couple years. I debated topicality and regular non-k affirmatives usually and rarely ran critical arguments besides cap.
Tell me how to vote! hope this is helpful!

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last Updated: November 2023

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.

Yes email chain (I prefer Speechdrop if it's all the same but good with whatever) -eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. That is more of a statement of experience than philosophy; I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, I am likely to struggle to understand how you justify an affirmative ballot.

3) Debate is an oral activity. While I will want your speech docs, I flow based on what I hear. If I don't hear it, I will not fill in my flow later based on what you send.

4) I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed. (See below for my detailed approach to clipping.)

5) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement.

6) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. I don't generally believe in a conditional 2NR.

7) Flow the debate, not the speech doc. Very little moves my speaker point calculation down faster than debaters responding to arguments that were not made in the debate.

8) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please. If you fly through a theory block at maximum evidence speed, it probably won't all make it onto my flow.

9) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. While I can explain to my students a more modern offense-defense framework, I do still largely view T as a true-false question.

10) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

11) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

12) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

Clipping Policy

Clipping - Representing, through sending a speech doc or other means, that you have read evidence which was not read in the round. If evidence is highlighted, skipping any un-highlighted words is clipping; if evidence is not highlighted, skipping any un-underlined words is clipping. Verbal indications to "cut" or "mark" a card are acceptable indications that you have chosen not to read all of a particular card in the doc, and you should be prepared to provide a marked version of your speech to your opponents if requested.

Clipping continues to be a major issue in our activity. You are welcome to make a formal challenge, and if you do so, the relevant KSHSAA/NSDA/etc rules will control rather than my personal approach, which is:

1) If you clip a card, I will make my decision as though you did not read that card at all. It will be removed from my flow.

2) If you, as a team, clip four or more cards, you will lose my ballot on poor evidence ethics without the need for a formal challenge.

3) If both teams in a debate violate #2, I will decide the debate as normal based on any un-clipped cards from both sides.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence (i.e., paraphrasing) is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

Lansing High School '21

University of Kansas '25 (not debating)

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

Pronouns: she/her

top level

Do your thing. I'll try to resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible. I'd rather you read something you enjoy reading, I'll do my best to adapt to what arguments you read.

I’ve done limited research on this topic and have only judged a few rounds this season.

If anything on my paradigm isn't clear or your have questions - feel free to ask me before round or shoot me an email

Planless affs:

I'm best at adjudicating and giving constructive feedback in debates with policy affs because that's where most of my experience as a debater was, but I enjoy watching and evaluating planless affs.

Make sure you're explaining the literature/process that your aff takes

Being in the direction of the topic is important

Framework - 2nc/2nr's should interact with the aff at some level, ie. don't just read generic uncontextualized t-usfg blocks. Give a detailed explanation as to why the specific model/aff is worse for debate. Most debates that don't contextualize framework arguments to the aff end up sounding like "K affs are bad for debate", which is a strat you can go for but it's much easier to win with specific offense and more difficult to convince me that any and all planless affs are bad for debate.

Fairness and education can both be impacts (unless argued otherwise), but I personally think fairness is argued best as an i/l to education

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations

TVA's are good to help explain impacts and help contextualize what offense you lose under the aff's model

Slow down a little bit on analytics

Disads

Da/cp debates are usually pretty fun and probably my favorite to watch

Specific links>topic links

Not much to say here

Counterplans:

Default condo is good, but can be convinced otherwise

Process cp's are fine, but I eer aff on theory

I default to judge kick

Condo is the only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team

2a's - please utilize going for theory more, negative teams can be pretty abusive when it comes to fiat - even if you don't end up going for it, having it in your arsenal is good practice and might save you from losing to a random process cp one day

Kritics:

Assume I don't know your lit, make sure you are explaining your ev and contextualizing it to the topic/aff

Not the best judge for kvk debates, very limited experience here

Line by line>long overviews

Other:

Judge instruction is important - your 2nr/2ar should outline what you want the decision on my ballot to look like

Be kind to everyone in the round! Debate is a fun and educational outlet for people - don't make me intervene because you've made someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe in the debate space.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

2024 EK Note: I've done zero work on this topic so treat me like a dumb little baby.

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is almost always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key.

I'm like a 7/10 on speed, with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

I am an assistant debate coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Mary’s College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So I’m cool with Ks, and a well-written K always brings me joy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever you like. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. I think little affs with 100% solvency are underappreciated. I’m also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument if you tell me why that means you win the debate. I am good with speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and don’t use it to exclude people.

mszafraniec1997@gmail.com for the email chain, or if you'd like to ask me questions about your round later.

I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.

Bring me a chai and you get block 30s

Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.

I am in my 8th year of debate. Fourth year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: October 12th, 2024. Pre-Heritage Hall.

General:

Debate is a technical game. Any argument is at play as long as it is complete. This means I could care less if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate.

Arguments are complete when they contain a claim, warrant, and impact. I have a higher threshold for "completeness" than most. Arguments made or extended without a reason, or without comparison to your opponent's arguments, are not complete and matter less than those that are. This applies equally to "answered" and "dropped" arguments---repeating the statement "x was dropped" 50 times does not make it true, but extending it with a warrant and implicating it in the debate does.

I am a policy debater at heart---I almost always go for a DA and/or CP. I very rarely go for the K, and always defend a plan. I've been in a lot of clash debates, but that does not mean I am subject matter expert in them.

I care a lot about this activity, and know you likely do as well. That means I will try my hardest to render the most accurate decision even in debates I am the most uncomfortable. I don't care about clout, number of TOC bids, or anything in between. I do care about clear, concise, and technical debating.

That means I will try to give as thorough feedback as possible, and I implore you to ask me as many questions as you want. If you disagree with the decision, let's talk about why. If you were unsure about an argument in the debate, let's talk about how to answer it in the future.

I tend to find the link of any argument to be far more important than any other part of the debate. Whether its a DA, K, or T argument, identifying why the AFF does or does not do something tends to be central to how I write my decisions---I've made many, many decisions precisely on the link, or lack thereof.

Procedure:

I flow on paper. I write notes and my RFD on paper. This means pen time is a must. Spreading full speed into your computer means I will likely miss things, and if you choose not to slow down, I will feel no remorse for doing so.

I begin each decision by writing down everything relevant on an extra piece of paper, and the AFF / NEG arguments for either. I then go through and evaluate each individual argument, as well as how deciding it one way or the other implicates the debate writ large.

I will give my RFD by reading off of the notes I wrote. It will likely sound like a debate speech, and be organized in the way I processed the debate in my head.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

Reasonability is meaningless. Go for an interpretation that includes your AFF, and has offense that outweighs the NEG's.

Vague plans that barely modify the language of the resolution frustrate me. You can win on plan text in a vacuum, but your speaks will drastically improve if you go for something else.

Specificity matters---you shouldn't just describe your impact as "so many AFFs based on this mechanism" or "so many DAs we cannot read", but instead about specific arguments your opponent's interpretation removes. I care far more about 1-2 good pieces of NEG ground lost, or 1-2 strategic AFFs lost, than blanket statements without contextualization.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

Fairness can be an impact. So can clash. I am agnostic to which is better.

I find AFF teams that go for a tricky counter-interpretation intended to solve NEG offense, with a small bit of differential offense, to be far more persuasive than broad impact turns to T.

I find NEG teams that go for a unique, contextualized TVA far more persuasive than any switch side debate argument. Just reading a TVA alone is insufficient, it must be explained in a way that bothaccesses an in-road to AFF discussions andattempt to solve the AFFs impacts.

I find technical concessions in these debates mattering far more than big picture, framing questions---if the NEG has dropped the "small schools DA" or the AFF has dropped "T is a procedural, means case cannot outweigh"---extend it, explain it, and implicate it to their strategy.

Disadvantages:

Turns case matters the most to me---both "impact turns case" and "link turns case". I end up finding myself concluding close debates based on mishandled turns case arguments. Likewise, I find AFF turns the DA equally persuasive.

Politics is dead, but no one acts like it. Just finding a single card about some piece of legislation, attaching a "plan decks PC" card, and a generic democracy impact does not meet the burden of proof. Politics DAs about legislation being actively debating, where the president or speaker of the house is taking an active role in negotiations, are far more persuasive.

It frustrates me that these don't exist on the IPR topic. It equally frustrates me that we continue selecting high school debate topics without ensuring there is adequate and balanced AFF and NEG ground. If you write a DA intrinsic to the AFF or the topic, and go for it in front of me, your speaks will reflect it.

Counterplans:

Process CPs bore me, but I understand their necessity. I'd prefer if the counterplan competed off of words unique to the resolution rather than "should is immediate and certain".

I think perm do the CP is far more persuasive and defensible than an intrinsic perm---find reasons the CP is not functionally competitive, and extend those, rather than defending an arbitrary, unjustifiable argument.

Competition is not topicality, and "the AFF is certain for DAs but not for CPs" is a defensible statement. I find the question of howcould the AFF be implemented to be distinct from whatshould AFFs look like.

Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team. That doesn't mean you shouldn't extend it if you are winning it, but it equally means you shouldn't proliferate theory arguments and go for whatever was under covered. Proliferating bad arguments does not improve your chance of victory.

Kritiks:

I find 2NRs that go for framework to be far more persuasive than those that go for the alternative. I personally believe the AFF ought to weigh the plan, but so many debaters are horrendous at defending why.

I find the link turn and permutation to be a more persuasive AFF strategy than the impact turn. I think if the AFF can be in the direction of the alternative, or can resolve portions of NEG offense, then it is likely the permutation can overcome the links to the plan.

Performative contradictions matter a lot to me---they are not reasons to reject the team, but basically zero the chance I think you can win a reps argument.

AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go along way.

I am now the head coach for Lansing HS in Kansas. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: willarddebate@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.