I am Joshua a 4th year LD Varsity debater. I have a slight preference for phil but I will listen to and vote on anything as long as its explained well.

Tech > Truth unless there is some real provable abuse

jb44330@wdmcs.org is my email I would appreciate it if both the aff and neg could send their cases before the round so I could read over them quickly because I have a processing disorder.

Also because of the processing disorder please do not spread, if you do spread I just wont be able to hear you so most of your arguments will not be flowed. If both debaters spread constructives I will just coinflip

Feel free to email me with any questions

My name is Sam Ebinger

Run whatever

NOVICES - winning framework is very important, dont just throw arguments out there.

Give me a clear reason to vote for you. Quality over quantity.

i will evaluate tricks if they are properly extended (ie don’t just say it once in the first speech and never go back to it)

not a parent judge

Yea that’s about it.

have a good round

Email is se51061@wdmcs.org

Hello my name is Elle. Please do not try to talk extremely fast/spread as I struggle to keep up with it, and to add to that try to speak clearly as well. Please don't be racist, able-ist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, etc. If you have anything that could be triggering please give a warning!!

jn41099@wdmcs.org---my email

DId three years of debate for Valley High School, graduated in 2025. Qualled to the TOC my senior year.

Phil>theory>tricks>K>Larp

Phil-Favorite type of debate, especially when there are two clashing framings (NC AC debates are fun). The more niche the standard the more interesting IMO. I've ran things like Nagel, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Jeaggi, Contracts, Inclusion framings, Egalitarianism, Self Ownership, util etc. Ive seen a lot of Phil Affs try to cheat their way out of having to defend their framing through things like indexicals and AFC, while I won't discourage things like this, If your framing has a good syllogism you should be able to beat back things like Util NCs and Kritiks.

Theory- Good. I will probably have trouble flowing a lot of analytic blips that come natural to spreading out theory, so if there something being said off the theory doc you might want to slow down a bit, its not my fault if I don't vote for a theory blip that I didn't flow because you went to fast. If the interp, violation, standards, voters, and paradigm issues aren't extended, the shell isn't a complete argument and thus I will not vote on it.

Tricks- Neutral opinions, think they're fun but probably bad for the acitivity, but hey, debates a game I guess. The more substantive the trick the more Ill want to vote on it, ie id rather pick up someone on indexicals or skep than eval after the AC or no neg analytics.

Random things

I won't evaluate arguments made new in the last rebuttal speeches, but it's still good to point out new arguments made in the 2N in the 2AR in case I don't clock that it's new.

All arguments must be connected to something that allows me to weigh the offense, IE give me a reason to care. A shell needs a voter or I can't vote on it, a K needs a ROB or something else for me to vote on it, and an AC or NC needs an ethical framing for me to vote on it.

Unless someone makes an argument that is trying to trigger presumption or permissibility, I will look for anyway not to vote on either of them, but if there truly is no offense in the round, I will default neg.

Speaks are arbitrary, but a 28.5 is like average

sn51804@wdmcs.org

for novices

You can debate however you want, just don't be racist, sexist, etc.

I'll vote off whoever is winning the flow.

framework debates are always fun, make sure to actually engage in the framework debate. Why should we use your framework, and stuff like that.

Make sure to weigh your arguments.

Give me some voters, why should you win?

Signpost, it's a good skill.

Have good clash, give good rebuttals, and all the good stuff.

Don't forget to extend arguments, also important.

Be funny and you could get higher speaker points.

Hi, I'm Lucy, I'm a 2nd-year debater at Valley

Pronouns are She/Her

Email: lr44452@wdmcs.org

Novices:

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, impact

Please weigh your arguments

Try your best to come up with creative arguments in rebuttals

IF YOU ARE CONFUSED/HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY DECISION PLEASE ASK ME. I've only debated for two years, so it's very possible I missed something or just didn't articulate my thoughts clearly enough in the rfd.

The most important thing is to learn and have fun. Debate competitions can be super stressful, especially if it's your first one, so just remember to slow down and enjoy the experience. I think a lot of times people get caught up in the competition aspect of debate and forget that it's a really fun activity.

I will flow the whole round - decided to include this in here bc when I was a novice a ton of judges didn't flow and it was super annoying

On framework: Actually interact with your opponent's framework, and tell me why to evaluate under yours in the round. Framework is like the seasoning that keeps debate from being bland

Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you

Read whatever makes you happy

Obviously don't read anything discriminatory. Judges shouldn't even have to put this in their paradigms

If you tell me a joke I might consider giving you better speaks

If you want to HEAR a joke I have several good ones up my sleeve

If you have questions, email me or ask during the round

I was a national circuit debater and then a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand things that don't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

It has become common to see debaters read for full speeches with minimal line-by-line or clash. I don't think many judges really enjoy that, but I have a strong aversion. If you don't even try to think on your feet, you may win, but your speaks will disappoint you.

Please do not be mean or rude, or spread or read technical strategies versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. I enjoy good traditional rounds.

call me “chat” + 0.5 speaks

im going to keep things simple; run wtvr you want idrc js as long as you understand it and make it understandable AND as long as you explain it to where not only i understand it, but so does your opponent. i will NOT vote on sexism, racism, ableism, ect. NO SPREADING

i love framework debates ngl - meaning that usually if there isn’t SOME sort of fwrk debate i get a little sad. if there isn’t a fwrk response on the opposing side, notice that, take it into account and WEIGH your arguments AND their arguments (easy w)

i LOVE self ownership.

I DO NOT LIKE EXTINCTION AND NUCLEAR/NUKE WAR ARGUMENTS. this being said, i would hope that novices from past tournaments have figured out other arguments that are FAR more interesting.

i agree w sam and jimmy regarding tricks - js extend it fully

i understand that since you guys are first-years you will try to spread, but if you’re not being CLEAR then neither of us (me and your opponent) will understand and will get frustrated. THIS BEING SAID AND EXPLAINED PRIOR TO ROUND; i don’t understand spreading, i can’t fully grasp the arguments and it makes me upset. i do have attention and focusing problems so please don’t spread.

if you include "999" in your debate round (that's LOGICAL and MAKES SENSE), then you get +1 speaks.

i may have gone to a decent amount of tournaments in the past year and a half, but that doesn’t mean that i know what you’re talking abt. i go into these debate like i don’t have a brain lol — ALSO some cases like carceral geo or some argument that NEEDS to be fully researched before debating makes me confused. if you don’t have a good explanation, how can i understand? much less judge?

btw i went 2-4 at a local big questions tournament and got 27.1 speaks, so you can say im pretty intelligible at debate

if you have any questions you can ask me in person!

if you're stalking my history in judging there is one round with a bunch of random letters and words - don't worry abt it

Hi! I'm Brie! My pronouns are She/Her

i would be considered what some people call a "Flow" judge (i give long rfds and actually flow rounds :D)

1. Theory / K's
2. Phil
3. LARP / others

Just cause its three doesn't mean I wont vote on it. I will do my best to evaluate everything evenly. please always be respectful to your opponent regardless of how they debate! kindness is key to safe debate spaces, and BE ACCOMODATING! I personally have a hard time focusing due to ADHD, so docs are nice, don't gatekeep debate just because you don't want your cases prepped out.

Debater of about 7-8 years now

bt43083@wdmcs.org

Yes, I am the daughter of Dave McGinnis

Overall:

1. I enjoy when debates clash, but if you are running something non-topical I will not link neg DA's to your case.
2. Theory debates are enjoyable when the opponent actually makes a counter-interp or attempts to RVI
3. I will vote on disclosure IF you actually do it well instead of spreading a shell and basically ignoring it in your second / third speeches

I promise to be a good judge and give effective (and long) feedback after the round

As a student judge, I value clarity and persuasion. Make sure I as a judge can hear and understand you, especially if you spread. Voters and frameworks are very important, along with general persuasive and well backed and articulated arguments.

Tech>Truth (Unless morally abhorrent)

TLDR:I like fun clash based around well-thought out arguments. I love phil debate; especially less commonly read authors. Theory and Ks are great too. LARP is sometimes ok but I generally don't like it,

LARP-3/4-If u don't justify consequences and just say u outweigh I WILL DROP YOU. I find the inability of LARP debaters to understand and debate against phil and K's to be madding. Outside of that, I am fine voting on this, so long as you have clearly explained why ur framing is better

K's-1/2-K's can be fun if they make sense. I do tend to buy anti-K theory against K's with really abusive alts, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Theory-2

Phil-1-Phil is the reason LD is different from policy. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ WARRANTS, THO. Especially if u reading some obscure author.

Tricks-3-So long as you have unique, well explained and sense-making arguments, you're golden to read these. Need warrants or else I am much less likely to vote. Will be kinda mad if u read boring tricks