Tabroom.com

19th Annual KCKCC Policy Debate TOC Qualifier

2024 — Kansas City, KS/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ava Adams-Huang Barstow School 6 rounds

Ananya Agrawal Blue Valley West 2 rounds

Thomas Babcock Newton 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 5:28 AM CDT

Istealprep@gmail.com

Debated @ Mill Valley High School 2016-20, Johnson County Community College 2020-22, and Wichita State University 2022-24.

Coached @ Westwood High School 2020-22, Wichita East High School, 2022-24, Newton High School 2024-Current, and Wichita State University 2024-Current.

**I have done relatively little research on both the College and HS topic. If you plan to get into the weeds please help me follow along a bit**

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence quality tends to matter more in T debates for me than most. Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

Alex Barreto Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 9:17 AM CDT

v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

I seek to be "Tech>Truth". While I think many judges rely too much on intuition and their own debate experience; PERCEPTION ie: the subconscious/conscious understanding of what is happening is inevitable and not always the same for judges and debaters. Two things you can do to help me with this,

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win".

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3--- I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your earlier speeches and then seemingly transition to the expansion/indicts of arguments in the rebuttals. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, or trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips

Tyler Bauman Barstow School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 4, 2024 at 10:12 AM EDT

Barstow debater for 6 years

MS Congress : Arms Sales and Criminal Reform

HS Policy : Water resources, NATO, Income Inequality, and Intellectual Property Law

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

Add me to the E-mail chain : tylerthedebater1984@gmail.com

They/Them

To make this short, have fun. I really don't care what you run, as long as you explain it then that is good.

I usually end up being a little more Truth over Tech. Although I try to not allow this to affect my decisions, it is still something that will inform how I evaluate arguments despite my efforts.

don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic etc.

I'm a K hack, but I don't mind policy.

Act like I don't know what any of your arguments are and explain it to me using this framework. This will really help you improve on giving your rebuttals and explaining your arguments.

I stop flowing after the 6th off, so don't bother. Read a few good arguments instead of a lot of shitty arguments.

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

Policy Aff - I'm good with both soft left and hard right, do what you do best.

K Affs - I like K Affs, but I assume since you are running a K Aff you know your lit base. I'm a material action fiend, I love revolution.

T - If you want to win on T you need to have an interp that is not absolute BS. T is one of those args that I won't vote on unless an aff is genuinely off topic (PERA is on topic so don't waste my time with T. If the aff is manufacturing more water bottles in Nevada, run T).

DA - Don't really have a strong positive or negative opinion on these. Don't drop a straight turn, that is a bad idea.

CP - For the love of god read something that is actually mutually exclusive with the aff.

Theory - Like T, I will really only vote on it if the opponent's strategy is genuinely abusive.

K - I like Ks a lot, as long as you are able to explain your K in a way that display's your understanding of it you will be good. I am most familiar with Queer Theory, Cap, Deleuze, Fem, Blackness, and Semiotics/Baudrillard, but really any K is fine.If you read death good I will auto vote against you, this kind of debating is utterly unacceptable and I will not hesitate to reject your team on face for doing so.

Case - Just engage with the opponents, the worst thing a debate can fall into is just two arguments that don't clash one another. As long as you engage on case you are all good. Oh and impact turns are always fun. I like where there is good case debating happening.

T USfg/FW/whatever you call it - Long story short, I will try my best to evaluate these debates fairly. I run a K aff, so I am likely to lean aff due to having to deal with this arg almost every aff round. That does not mean I am unwilling to vote neg, but the threshold for a neg ballot on FW is going to probably end up being slightly higher than other policy judge's.

KvK - If you are going for Cap K (like most people do), show that you know what you are talking about. I will be expecting hardened Marxist-Leninist-Maoist level display of knowledge and intricate explanations of the most nuanced differences between the aff and the alt (I'm joking... partially). For any other K, IDK have a link and a mutually exclusive alt.

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

Remember that your opponents are people, treat them as such; don't be a jackass.

Don't misgender your opponents. If it was a mistake, apologize, but I will still evaluate it as a voting issue if it is extended. I've seen how this effects people first hand, and I have no problem voting against anyone who misgenders their opponent.

I accept bribes, but that doesn't mean I will vote for you.

If you are reading this: hey, hope you are having a good day, and if you are not, I'm sorry and let me know if I can help in any way.

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

Clarity>Speed

Friendly reminders:

Give pen time between flows
Slowdown on tags and analytics
differentiate between cards and tags

+ 0.5 speaker points if you are funny without forcing it

Atlas Bell They/Them Lansing HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 2:05 PM EDT

Hi my name is Atlas Bell, and I’ll be your novice debate judge.

About me:

I use they/them pronouns

if you are upset or have questions about my ballot, decisions, or my paradigm PLEASE email me at atlas.bell.debate@gmail.com

I am a 4th year debater at Lansing high school. i am extremely familiar with speech and debate.

a little bit about my speech and debate record; i was at CFL nationals for Poetry and prose last year and I have been at state for debate every year of my career.

i am not an easy judge to win. i am truth > tech. you can bring 1 million cards to the debate and i will not care if you don't try and convince me of your point. speak TO me, not at me. please call be Atlas and not "Judge" please but if you forget its not a huge deal lol. i will be flowing this round off of what you say not the cards you bring. please signpost (say what youre talking about when you move on from card to card or argument to argument)

i have very little tolerance for logical fallacies and even less tolerance for verbal abuse. Be kind to your opponents and have respect for your judge. we are all here to learn and have fun so don't ruin it by getting way to heated over something trivial.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Strengthen Its Protection Of Domestic Intellectual Property Rights In Copyright, Patents, And Trademarks.

Speaking and general:

your arguments should be linear and gain less and less cards as the debate goes on. if the 1NC has 15 cards the 2NC shouldn't have 20. same goes for Aff.
what you say matters and i put just as much weight on analytical arguments as card ONLY IF yu back it up with historical or supported evidence.
i doubt this will be a problem but there will be absolutely NO spreading in this round. at all. if you start i will clear you ONCE and if you continue you will automatically be docked 5 speaker points for each speech you spread in.

Stock:

it think there is something quite charming about doing stock correctly.
the five stock issues are Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. If either team drops any of these they lose on the flow, IMO.

counterplans:

counter-plans can be good, I'm waiting for them to be great. i HATE conditionality, go for dispositionality. its WAYY better. go all in or don't run it at all.
kicking the counter-plan just because makes me upset and sad.
"Dispositional-status of a counterplan that would allow the negative to only kick the counterplan if the affirmative team has made defense arguments only (including but not limited to a permutation, solvency deficits, or theory arguments)." - NSDA definition of a dispositional counterplan

Disads:

for a disad, you must have uniqueness, a link, and an impact. without any of these parts i will not consider the DA in my decision.

Kritiks:

i love a good Kritik or non-linear disad, but it has to be done RIGHT.

explain how the alt solves, without alt extension and a proper link chain i will not weigh the K.

Brian Box Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 9:03 AM CDT

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4@gmail.com

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Use your flow to answer the other teams arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Highlighting is important. Definitely willing to lower the prioritization of an argument or ignore it entirely if it's highlighted nonsensically. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. 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. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Aiden Canon Blue Valley Southwest High School 6 rounds

Allie Chase The Pembroke Hill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:57 PM CDT

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

Harris Chaudhry Washburn Rural High School 4 rounds None

Eli Cochrane Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 8:21 AM CDT

he/him/his

put me on the email chain: elimcochrane@gmail.com

if you're spreading please send your analyticals even if privately to me, i have hearing issues. if i can't understand you, i can't flow

call me judge, not eli

about me: i debated for 3 years in high school pretty competitively. state champion, 6x state qualifier, 3x nats qualifier, nats elim round participant, currently consulting for my old high school. i love debate and love judging. ku class of 2028

feel free to email me with questions about the round or about debate in general!

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

if you are racist/ homophobic/ sexist/ transphobic/ etc. to your opponents, partner, or anyone else: i’ll talk to your coach, give you low speaks, and have an extremely low threshold for voting against you

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

ultimately, i will consider any argument made during the debate. i make my decision based solely on the flow. i flow on paper but i can keep up with any speed. none of my opinions below are set in stone, they are just defaults that might be helpful to know. my only non-negotiables are warrant comparison and round contextualization.

for the 2024-2025 season: i haven't done too much research on this topic so i will need you to explain things to me using overviews, clear warrant comparison, and specific impact calc (which you should be doing anyways)

tl;dr

–i work hard to give you the best decision possible, i expect you to work hard too

–tell me why i should care and why you have the shortest path to the ballot

–i will vote for anything (excluding racism/ sexism/ etc. good)

–my background is mainly policy, but i understand critical arguments; just debate your usual way

–i need to hear warrants to vote on something. don’t just shadow extend taglines

–drop does not always mean immediate W, tell me why it matters for the round

–if you don’t say it out loud i don’t flow it

–debate the best version of your opponents’ arguments

–ask me questions after the round (if tournament allows), post-rounding is usually good

–i default to no judge kick

–i will never vote for new 2ar arguments

topicality

–the more contextual the definition, the better

–you have to explain how the specific violation accesses your voters or i won't really buy it

–i default to competing interps

disads

–specific and comparative impact calc will usually give you a W

–line by line >>>

–warrants are especially important on disads

counterplans

–must solve the aff and have a net benefit for me to vote for it (unless argued otherwise obv)

–see theory section for condo & cp types

kritiks (aff & neg)

–you will usually win k debates if you over-explain, especially on framework

–i don’t personally buy real-world spillover arguments, but i will vote on it if you’re persuasive

–i am most familiar with cap, neolib, fem, queer & trans, blackness, biopower/ biopolitics, death, and baudrillard. if you're running something else, make sure you explain well, especially on the framework and link debates

–performance is cool, but it doesn’t factor into my decision unless you tell me why it should

theory

–i have a relatively low threshold for voting against egregious process cps/ pics/ condo 10+ plank cps

–i don’t care about vague theory; contextualize it to the round

–large teams should disclose, i don’t think small teams have to or should

–condo is probably getting a little out of hand, but i will not vote on unwarranted condo bad in the 2ac/1ar that becomes an entire 2ar

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

(in the order of importance, most to least) i’ll give you lower speaks if you:

–spread through analyticals and don't send them to me

–are rude, passive-aggressive, condescending, or unnecessarily loud

–don’t enunciate

–are unorganized

–steal prep

–misclose

–never look at me during the debate

–cut cards out of context

–are redundant

–take an absurd amount of loud breaths in weird places while spreading

–are not engaged or interested in the debate

+0.2 speaker points if you're funny

Ryan Corrigan Olathe North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:11 AM CDT

Lansing '22

KU '26

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

pronouns: he/him

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. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

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.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

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 you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do 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 they probably are 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.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

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

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

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

Brett Cranor Blue Valley Southwest High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 9:49 AM CDT

Brett Cranor

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley Southwest Highschool

bvsw '23

ku '27 (not debating)

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com + bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

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

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable. I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The places where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class tbh) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

Trent Dixon Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 9:52 AM CDT

Info:

He/They

North Kansas City HS, Policy (2018-2022)--Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water

William Jewell College, NPDA/NPTE (2022- )

Call me Trent, please

put me on the email chain or speech drop or whatever --trentd434@gmail.com

TL;DR

I'll flow what you say--do with that what you will.

***None of the preferences written below are strong enough to change the outcome of a debate, but adjusting to these preferences will increase your chances of winning, and most likely raise your speaks.***

tech + truth > tech > truth

Being rude/condescending will most likely lead to docked speaks.

I'll listen to almost any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, transphobic, etc.

I am cool with speed, but you need to be clear. I'll say "clear" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you. Same is true if you are somehow too fast for me. I'll say "slow" twice and then stop flowing until I can understand you again.

Put analytics in the doc, please. (or at least slow down a little when you get to them) you might get a decision you don't like if i am not able to catch these arguments

Life (probably) has value. Extinction is most likely bad, but I'll hear what you have to say

I'll start at 28/28.5 and go up or down.

Post-round if you want. I don't really care. I should have to defend my decision just as much as you should have to defend your case.

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-------------------------X------K

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

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Conditionality good--X-----------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability----------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable---------X---------------------You might just be a bad person

Yes. Da's are good and cool. Not much to say here.

Generic links can be okay as long as you contextualize them.

I have a high threshold for new 1ar arguments and must be able to draw a line.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2nr.

Normal DAs: L > I/L > U > Impact

PTX DAs: U = L > I/L > Impact

Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo

PICs are generally good.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

Perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory.

I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory. Just win your arg.

I'm probably gonna understand your K--with that said, please don't expect me to know all of the lit of your K--explain it.

You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning.

Fiating your cap alts is funny and people should do it more.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise "Justify your epistemology and THEN weigh the aff" is my favorite counter-interp.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action.

If you read a K you don't understand I probably won't vote for it

T/Theory

Be topical. Or don't. Just win why your approach is good.

I default to competing interps, unless told otherwise.

I truly believe that conditionality is good.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness"

Extra-resolutional procedurals are often frivolous and silly and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

Disclosure is infinitely good. Please do it.

Case debate

Teams underestimate the importance of case debate. The neg should put lots on the flow on case.

Impact turns are one of my favorite arguments.

K Affs

The best K-Aff teams beat framework on a) a counter-interp with a strong defense of the resolution under their model or b) a convincing impact turn to neg standards.

I don't think K affs need to link to the topic or defend it--just give me reasons why doing it would be bad

You do you. Do what you like, and tell me why I care about it.

The closer to policy, the better.

The above statement is still true--i really don't want to intervene, but sometimes it feels impossible in this format, soooooooooo *shrugs*

Things not to do

don't. steal. prep.

Don't say anything sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic-90% of the time auto loss, 100% of the time you will get as low speaks as possible

Don't use problematic language--Trigger warnings and alternate cases should be available in applicable cases.

Don't be rude to your opponents/teammate/me/other judges-Everyone has worked unbelievably hard, so you should treat them like it.

Don't refuse disclosure.

Don't be mean -- being an aggressive debater is amazing -- don't step over the line.

Don't shake my hand. Please.

If you have any questions email me :)

Madeline Doyle Shawnee Mission East High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 9:50 AM CDT

Hello all, my name is Maddie (she/her). Add me to the email chain: madeline.doyle0628@gmail.com

Last Updated: October 22nd, 2024. Pre-Caucus.

Shawnee Mission East '24

University of Kansas '28

Feel free to contact me with questions about the round, I am more than happy to give more in-depth feedback.

I am currently a debater at the University of Kansas and I debated 3 years pretty competitively in high school.

You can go fast in front of me, I don't care just make sure you're clear. I will clear you if you are not. If your opponents don't want you to spread, please don't. I want to make the debate space as friendly as possible, and that starts with basic kindness and consideration.

**I will not evaluate arguments about things that happened outside of the round.

TL;DR:

-I'm very tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I went for cc good a lot my senior year if that tells you anything.

-If you are being strategic and playing the game, you are more likely to win.

-If it is a close debate, I will read your cards and evaluate the quality of your evidence.

-I'd like to see more judge instruction, I don't see this enough. Write my ballot for me.

-I will default to policymaking, if you want different, you have to tell me.

Topicality: I love T. I think that when done well it serves its purpose. Make sure you are specific with your impacts to T, don't just give me some internal links and say that's an impact, I see this too much. I will traditionally operate under a competing interps paradigm.

CPs: I will vote on any CP. I'm good with competition debates just make sure you give clear warrants. If you cook up creative perm texts I will boost your speaks. 2NC CPs are fine, just make sure you can justify it. I will judge-kick the CP if if both teams agree condo is good.

DAs: These are good. Make sure you extend all parts of the DA. I like turns-case, I think it is something that should be utilized more. Please for the love of god do impact calc. Make sure the links are specific to the AFF, I will read all the cards in the round and I feel like this topic lets a lot of people get away w/ reading non-UQ links.

Ks: I am mostly familiar with the more commonly read lit bases. It never hurts to explain the thesis of the K and the theory of power tho. I think the 1AR gets to say new things on the K. Your alt needs some sort of solvency or a NB to voting for the K. I will judge kick the alt if you tell me to. I'm comfortable voting on just FW. Give me a win condition for you to win your framework.

Theory: I think theory debates are fine. Theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I am undecided about condo. I went for it on the aff in high school and responded to it on the neg (I was both a 2A and 2N) and I think it’s a valid argument. Make sure you analyze your theory argument heavily because I want to know that you understand what you are running. I honestly prefer substance debates more, but I will vote on most theory arguments if they are logical.

Neg v K:

T-USFG: I evaluate both fairness and clash equally in these debates. Feel free to go for either impact in front of me. I think that T is a prior question. I operate on an offense-defense paradigm here. Specific TVAs > generic SSD blocks. I will give you -0.1 speak every time you read a block that has stuff from last year (i.e. every time you say "talking about fiscal redistribution is good").

General: Make sure your evidence says what you are explaining it as. I am good to have in the back for presumption.

K v K: This is always a fun debate. Perms are good for aff. Please analyze the cards more here, as I don't think you can over-analyze K cards. Specific links are amaze in these debates. Must differentiate theories of powers here. Tell me the NB to voting your way.

Don't forget to have fun!

Sacia Rose Edie Lawrence Free State High School 4 rounds None

Darren Elliott Hire

Lexi Ellis Washburn Rural High School 6 rounds

Timothy Ellis Washburn Rural High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 7:38 AM CDT

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net ,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
We are in an election year. One of the most important things that young people can do is read about and learn about the election. IPR links are not very good, but if you think about the way some of these plans would be exploited by one party or the other in other ways, I can easily be convinced that elections is a viable disadvantage.

Hannah Erdman Wichita East 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 6:39 AM CDT

Hannah Erdman, Wichita East High School Head Speech and Debate Coach

Previous Experience: Assistant Coach for Eisenhower High School, HS Policy Debate, HS Forensics Kid, Kansas State University Policy Debate

- Include me on email chains: herdman@usd259.net

- Spread is fine. Just slow down on taglines and make sure you signpost. Ask your opponent's preference for spread to keep the debate fair and equitable.

- Tech > Truth, but don't be surprised if I leave some feedback that you have some very obviously glaring falsities in your argument, but overall, I value the structure of the round and will honor the arguments actually made.

- If you don't flow, I'm not flowing. I tend to vote on the flow in a policy maker style.

- Don't pull new in the 2-- I find it cheating.

Novices:Honestly, I really just value that you are in a round and getting it done. Make what arguments you feel comfortable making and do what makes you feel most comfortable. I will help where I can, and I will have patience and grace as long as it does not interfere with fairness and the structure of the tournament. Please know that I givea lotof feedback, so even if I am not looking at you and I am typing, it is because I am writing with the intent that you get better based off of my notes. In addition to that, a lot of novices and competitors have commented that I look like an intimidating, angry judge. I promise I am incredibly kind and personable-- my face is just like that. :) Practice professionalism and kindness as a novice, and you will go far in my book. However, debate is still argumentation, so make sure you give me that clash! Spice it up with some good analytics-- don't just read cards. I really don't like to see framework, theory, and K run in novice, but if you do it, know it through and through. Have fun!

-JV/Open:You are on your way to Varsity! Keep up the good work, here's what I expect out of JV/Open: Trust in your arguments and follow through with them. I am not a huge fan of seeing K, Framework, and High Theory in JV. More K can come through in Open.
Disadvantages: Always a great strat, but I'm not a huge fan of generic disadvantages. You should have a really strong internal link and cards that aren't contradictory, easily turned, or land in a thumper argument. You're here to have fun, and I love to see that, so go for the existential impacts and make it good. I will also deeply appreciate some solid philosophical debate on ethical impacts and the subsequent Impact Calculus.
Topicality: Lowkey, I kind of hate topicality arguments, but I'll listen to them. Just make sure it's not a throwaway argument for you. Many times when I see T run in JV and Open, it's dropped or conceded by the end of the constructives. If you also try to argue fariness and vagueness, then you pull out 3 specific DA's? I really hope the Affirmative catches you on that. Really believe in T and don't use it as a filler argument ("10 off, starting with 5 T" is really a pet peeve of mine.)
Counterplans: Unironically, I do kind of love counterplans, especially ones that challenge the structure of the round and of the affirmative plan. On the flipside, make sure the perm isn't lazy-- really give it some work and push back on it. The only thing I ask for counterplans is that you make it pretty obvious that it's a counterplan and not just some randomly mis-labeled argument that looks like you pulled it from a random file. You're open and JV, you should know what you've got going.

- Varsity: Go crazy in varsity-- you got here, let it all out and have the fun you deserve. The only thing I ask is that you don't get too aggressive in the round. I'm fine with about every argument in varsity: DA, Topicality, CP, K, High Theory, Framework, etc. I am also fine with spread, but please check in with your partner and slow on taglines so I know where you are at in the document. See my comments in JV/Open about DA, T, and CP.
Kritik: I generally love K because I think it adds a certain angle to the debate that you do not see in other rounds. Varsity is a place to experiment and have fun, but even in performatives, K Affs, and other strats, make sure there's at least a thread that links back to the topic. It's hard to prep for otherwise, especially if you're not disclosing earlier than 30 minutes before the round (Debate Wiki).
High Theory: I was in college around the time that high theory became pretty prevalent in debate. As someone that likes to challenge norms and values in a round, I want to see some high theory and rules arguments including some potential negotiation and debate over the definitions/limitations of current rules. I also kind of love some meme debate in varsity, because it keeps it fresh and fun without becoming a verbally violent policy fight.
Framework: Listen, I'm generally acting as a policy maker, but if you want to try to run some paradigm shift and re-define how I vote for the round, that's cool. I like seeing the creative ways in which debaters want to frame the round. It allows for some mental gymnastics that are ultimately good for the soul.

Any other questions, comments, or argument clarifications can be emailed to me at least 30 minutes before round begins or asked at the top of round.

David Freeland Wichita East 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:00 AM CDT

David Freeland

No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:

Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.

Debate-specific paradigm:

Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.

-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.

-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.

-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.

-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.

-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.

-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.

-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.

-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.

-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.

-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.

Adiel García Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 21, 2024 at 6:25 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Adiel Garcia (he/him/his)

I debated at Spring Hill in Kansas (2020-2024) (CJR, Water Resources, Emerging Technologies/NATO, and Economic Inequality). I did both KDC and DCI styles.

I currently coach at Millard North (2024-)

Email: adieljcg05@gmail.com

Top Level

I probably don't know as much about IPR as you do.

Tech>Truth

Clarity>Speed

Provide trigger warnings if needed

Run whatever you want as long as you understand it and explain it well. I'll vote for almost everything (besides -isms).

I am most comfortable judging policy v policy, policy v k, and k v t/fw. I would feel ok judging a k v k round, but you would need to over-explain since I have very limited experience.

I default to policymaker if not given framework.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask.

Preferences/Thoughts

T-I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability, explain what it looks like.

DA-They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way. Linear DAs are cool.

CP-I think every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type net-benefit. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans.

K-I've ran abolition, governmentality/biopower, imperialism, orientalism, and sett col. Besides that, I'm familiar with most k lit such as cap and anti-blackness. I'm not the best for psychoanalysis or pomo. I think the link is the most important part of the K. If I can't understand how the aff links to the K, I probably won't vote on it. Links of omission are ok. If you want to win on a k, framework is a must.

Theory-I think that a majority of theory arguments, condo being the obvious exception, are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I default to condo being good. I'm fine with vagueness and the a-z spec theory arguments. I will not judge kick unless you tell me to.

On case- I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Impact turns are cool.

K-Aff/Performance-Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. I think you should be in the direction of the resolution. I think you should slow down a bit and explain your advocacy. The 1AC shouldn't just be pre-empts to T. ROB and ROJ are extremely important.

T-USFG/FW-I think that fairness is an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model. A good TVA is a good way to secure my ballot.

Speaks

You start off at 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. Speaks are usually determined by argument analysis, clarity, and good cx. +0.1 if you can make a reference to Creighton basketball. If you want something to gage speaks off then here.

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile.

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30.0: excellent; top speaker quality

Annie Goodson Blue Valley West 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 23, 2024 at 4:09 AM CDT

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I wrote my dissertation this summer and have done basically zero reading in this topic literature. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific scholarship you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round. Anything else wastes everyone's time.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I try to use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

Anika Goyal Blue Valley West 6 rounds

Niko Helixon Blue Valley Southwest High School 6 rounds

Campbell Hight Washburn Rural High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 7, 2024 at 3:19 PM CDT

Campbell Hight

She/her

Washburn Rural '26

hightcam@usd437.net

If you are reading this, you are probably a novice, and I am probably judging you!

First of all, good job reading the paradigm. Second of all, good job for trying debate (especially on this topic)

General Things (in order of importance for Novices)

Be kind and respectful and we'll all have a good time

Flow!

Judge instruction is important. Don't assume I will fill in the gaps for you.

Cross-X doesn't matter in my decision unless you bring it up in a speech. Good CX can get you higher speaks regardless

Speed is fine (just be clear and accommodate if necessary)

Tech over truth

Condo is almost always good

Fairness is an impact

I default to judge kick

I won't evaluate anything that happened outside of the round

Tips for Higher Speaker Points/Ranks in Front of Me

Don't read cards past the 1NR if can be avoided. I might permit one or two 1AR cards if the round calls for it, but no novice should be reading cards in the final rebuttals.

I will almost always prefer you to try giving a speech off your flow/without your computer than just read pre-written speeches in the rebuttals.

Don't waste time. When prep is done, you should be ready to give your speech, not to fiddle with the podium and shuffle your papers for 5 minutes. This being said, if it is a tech problem, I get it.

Topic knowledge will really impress me. This topic is difficult for me to understand as a third year debater, let alone a novice who is also trying to grapple with the mechanics of debate.

Preferences

Topicality -I'm a big fan of T as an argument, and I think it's really important to learn how to read. That being said, I'm not a big fan of just spreading through blocks and not making any analytical arguments off the flow. I will vote on T in the novice packet, but I set the bar at being able to explain your argument without reading blocks.

Ks - I have minimal experience with the K outside of cap. Make sure to explain all parts of the K, especially the link, if you intend to go for it in the 2NR.

Counterplans - I love counterplans (when they actually have a net benefit)! Just make sure to explain what your counterplan actually does, why it is different than the plan, and how it doesn't link to the net benefit.

Everything else is probably fine

Derek Hilligoss Barstow School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 31, 2024 at 2:53 PM CDT

Currently a coach and PhD student at The University of Kansas.

Add me to the chain plz and thank you DerekHilligoss@gmail.com

for college add rockchalkdebate@gmail.com as well

NSD Flagship Tournament--- Be nice and have fun! If you are mean to little buddies you are capped at 28 points.

TL;DR do what you do and do it well. Don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want.

The biggest thing for me is that I value good impact framing/calc. If you aren't explaining why your impacts matter more then your opponents you are leaving it up for me or the other team to decide.

Framework: Go for whatever version of framework you like but I tend to think it should interact with the aff at some level. If you give the 2NC/2NR and make no reference to the aff you will find it harder to win my ballot.

Planless affs: The one note I wanna make outside of FW notes is that you have to be able to answer the "what do you do" question no matter how silly it may seem. If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC/CX that's gonna put you in a rough spot. I don't think this means you have to do anything but you should have a good justification for why you don't have to.

Theory: condo (probably) to a certain extent is good and counterplans should (probably) have solvency advocates. I have no strong opinions just tell me how to feel.
*new strong opinion* going for condo is not a remedy for being a bad 2A---

Topicality: limits for the sake of limits probably bad?

Counterplans: cool? Do it

Disads: The only thing I wanna note here is highlight your cards better. I don't wanna have to read 30 crappy cards to get the story of the disad and it makes it easier for the aff to win with a few solid cards.

Kritiks: Specific links go a long way. This doesn't mean it has to be exactly about the plan but your application will do better than a generic "law bad" card. Applying your theory to the aff's advantages in a way that takes out solvency will make your lives so much easier.

For the aff FW I think a well developed FW argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will do more for you than fairness/limits impacts.

Random things:

If you are unclear I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. I'll make it apparent I'm not flowing to let you know you need to adjust still.

If you clip you will lose.

"reinsert card here"- nope :) read it- this is a communication activity not a robot activity.

Parker Hopkins Lawrence Free State High School

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 10:27 AM CDT

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-2024 - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality)

2024-Present - Lawrence Free State, KS (IP Law)

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

I am easily persuaded that not sending evidence read in a speech with speech prior to the start of the speech is a violation of evidence sharing rules.

Wazeen Hoq Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 6, 2024 at 7:41 PM CDT

email: wazeen.hoq2023@gmail.com

bvn 23

ku 27

-i am not familiar with the 24/25 topic

-email chain please

general

-To minimize the chances of judge interference working against you and to maximize the chances that I give you my ballot, every 2nr/2ar should include judge instruction. Tell me what I am voting on and why I should be voting for it. You don't have to have a framing page to do this, although, they are nice to have.

-Tech > Truth. I am comfortable with voting on arguments contrary to my political and philosophical beliefs because, for me, debate as an activity should be about developing argumentative and persuasive skills, which means if you're winning the flow, you have my ballot. Of course, there are limitations. You would be crossing these limitations if you were cheating or actively harming the emotional/physical well-being of your competitor.

-Completely dropped arguments are true (even vagueness, unfortunately). Functionally dropped arguments are contested, and thus, not true until they are either dropped or I am evaluating both sides at the end of the round.

-This applies more in K/method debates, but I think that, for most people including myself, debate is a game. I think that the activity could be seen as a research activity; however, I think that competition incentivizes the progression of whatever scholarship someone may be developing. For example, if your research is comfortably winning your rounds and tournaments, you would probably be less inclined to change it than if you were to be losing rounds. Of course, there are scenarios where someone could be truly impassioned by the knowledge they're spreading through this type of discourse, so if you think you are one of them, please add personal experiences and/or anecdotes. This will help me see that the activity for you is more than just a game and that it's a research activity you use to search for certain truths.

-I set my standard speaker points at 28.5. I will determine your speaker points based on your "ethos:" how well you compose yourself before, while, and after your constructive; how well you ask and answer questions in cross; how much you rely on your computer; etc. I know that this is more subjective, but if you are a confident, composed debater, you will get good speaks.

-fw: all fine

-link: They can be links to the plan and/or their representations. I will evaluate your links based on whichever fw interp I think is winning. I don't find links of omission persuasive, but I am happy to vote on them if the you argue that the omission is actually intentional and significant.

-impacts: Structural and terminal impacts are both fine with me.

-Alts: You can jettison them and go for framework or you can explain the world of the alt--whichever one you choose, I'm fine with voting on either of them.

cps

-all fine

disads

-all fine

- fine; I think that T is more about in-round abuse than models of debate

theory

-all fine

Ezra Joseph Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Kevin Krouse Olathe North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 8:27 AM CDT

Paradigm

Email: Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

Coaching:
Olathe North Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - Policy Debate
Simpson College Assistant Debate Coach (2024-present) - LD focus
Olathe East Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach (2017-2024) - Policy and LD focus

Debate experience:
4 years competing in Policy and LD in High School
3 years competing in College Parli debate (NPTE/NPDA circuit)

If you only read one thing on this paradigm, it should be my thoughts below on extending arguments:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately (see above paragraph) and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool/offense and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks (ESPEICALLY IF THEY ARENT IN THE DOC). 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately and generate offense against the resolution. I wish negs going for framework did more work explaining how the TVA articulated is sufficient instead of just reading their blocks with random TVAs v K aff, these debates are often shallow and too generic. I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for the aff as opposed to a full rejection of the topic, but I've voted for both a decent amount. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

Document sharing:

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Ev Quality:

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed. I don't go back and thoroughly re-read every piece of evidence after the round unless it is a card that has become a key point of contestation.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Christopher LaPee Olathe North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 6, 2024 at 7:12 AM CDT

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

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)

Jeannine Lopez De Soto High School 5 rounds

John Marshall Lawrence Free State High School 4 rounds

Alex McCarthy Shawnee Mission West High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:21 AM CDT

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 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.

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's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

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. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Old man yells at cloud thing: in most circumstances flowing should resolve any need for a marked doc. If you want to ask which cards were not read in a speech, that's either your prep or cx :).

Ryan McFarland Blue Valley Southwest High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 4, 2024 at 9:13 AM CDT

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com , bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

2024-2025 things ----

I haven't done as much topic reading at this point in the year as I have in the past. I think the topic is incredibly boring and neg args are pretty bad. I think the K links are much more persuasive this year than previously. I'm not sure how I feel about being very anti-process/ridiculous advantage counterplans in a world where the best DA is court clog, but I could see myself being much more sympathetic to negative teams in this regard. That said, I still think affirmative teams should get good at theory against these arguments.

I've left my paradigm from last year below. That should still filter how you pref me, but I will likely find the K much more strategic and persuasive, which is probably the most significant change.

Old ----

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory.I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Katie McGaughey Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu August 1, 2024 at 11:31 AM CDT

EMAIL CHAIN: katie.mcgaughey@usd497.org

ABOUT ME: I did not participate in the activity in high school or college. However, I have judged several policy rounds and speech events in the last 6 years. I have judged everything from local Kansas City tournaments to NSDA Nationals in 2020, 2023, and again in 2024 as well as Speech Events like NIETOC in 2024. I have a Bachelor's degree from University of Kansas in Exercise Science and in Psychology with an emphasis in Cross-Cultural Communication, and I am currently working on a Masters of Science in Data Analytics at Northwest Missouri State University. I work as a Sales Rep at Macmillan Learning where I sell online courseware to community colleges and universities in Kansas and Missouri, and also serve as an Assistant Debate & Forensics coach at Free State High School.

APPROACH: 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. Anybody can read cards, good analysis, and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.

SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative because I flow on paper.

The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and just make sense. It is more important to be right than to be the most clever. I want to see that you have a nuanced global knowledge of the topic, not just reading cards that were cut for you.

POLICY ARGUMENTS: These are the things that I will be the most comfortable evaluating. Case debate, DAs, and smart CPs that are all supported by quality evidence and analytics that reflect your knowledge of the topic will be rewarded. Generating clash through warrant comparison and setting up the end of the round through comparative impact calculus are critical for shaping my ballot. Probability and timeframe are the most important parts of impact calculus to me, and time spent explaining (or breaking down) internal link chains is never wasted.

KRITIKS, PERFORMANCE, & PROCEDURALS: These positions weren't really a part of my competitive career and I've had limited exposure as a judge. I'm willing to listen to them, but you should deploy them at your own risk. Don't assume that I know your literature base or am well-versed in the way that your offense interacts with theirs. Narrative explanation and easy-to-follow structure will be important for me to effectively interact with your arguments. Link articulation is particularly important in this vein; having all of the offense in the world doesn't matter if I don't know how or why it's relevant in the round.

Please ask questions before the start of the round if anything is unclear.

Will Mercer De Soto High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:43 AM CDT

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.

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.

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.

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).

Evan Michaels Blue Valley Northwest 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 3:16 AM CDT

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

Hannah Mott Hayden HS 6 rounds

Devane Murphy Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Colin Orr Blue Valley Northwest 6 rounds

Hello! I'm a junior at BVNW.

Background - I debated freshman year (NATO) at Pittsburg High, sophomore (redistribution) and junior (IPR) at Blue Valley Northwest. I've judged three tournaments so far, beginning sophomore year. This year I'm in charge of mentorship at BVNW and I've put a lot of emphasis on helping our novices. Being so for real, policy debate isn't my favorite - I'm a forensics kid through and through. I am the President and program founder of forensics at BVNW - my favorite event is Congress!

Important - I value the education of the round first and foremost. I'm not going to scrutinize everything you do or run in round, it's not that serious, but I pay attention - good teamwork is awesome, folks being rude sucks. Usually I put more focus on your speaking performance rather than your arguments, but I'm not opposed to a low point win. The biggest thing that will boost your speaks - please analyze your evidence - explain what it means and why I should vote for it after you read it. Persuade me!! Don't just read off cards. I will only flow what is actually read in the round. I have very strong opinions about using AI in a round. Rebuttals are very important for selling me one way or the other.

Aff - Stick with your advantages and your solvency. It is very likely in novice rounds that the neg won't get to one of your advantages. Bring it back up - don't harp on it - but remind me of this awesome thing that your plan does which hasn't been challenged. A dropped advantage is a big no-no in my book. I'm a big fan of the "1% solvency" claim. Kritikal Affs are interesting and I have more fun with them than a standard policy aff, but if you run one make sure it's fully developed and not barely hanging together.2AR - impact calc and judge instruction!!

Neg - I love good counterplans (make sure they have a net benefit and aren't just one card) but anything is cool. Make crazy arguments if you want. Run case and offcase - I will never vote for a neg team that doesn't run a DA or offcase of any kind, but I also find it hard to vote for a neg team that drops the case. Always run a DA! Don't expect a neg vote if you don't attack their solvency. Ks are cool but explain it to me like I'm five and make sure to have a good link. If you run a K and don't know what you're talking about, it is very obvious :( make sure you're familiar with the literature. T is iffy, I used to be a big hater of it but it's grown on me - just make sure it's blatant and not a time suck. Theory/FW is pretty unfamiliar for me but I'm open to it.2NR - impact calc and judge instruction!!

Unimportant - I'll shake your hand if you want. Speechdrop is preferred to email chains but I don't really mind. Please put your speech docs in .docx format and not .pdf!!! Do forensics next semester! (and try at least one Congress tournament!)

I'm excited to judge your round!! I'm going to ask both teams if they've read this paradigm before the round starts because I'm rooting for all of you!

Chris Pace Shawnee Mission East High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 21, 2024 at 7:55 AM CDT

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

TLDR: I flow and understand debate, but prefer moderately-paced rounds over high speed rounds. I prefer policy rounds, but will keep an open mind. Varsity/TOC-level debaters will characterize me as "flay."

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 that you slow down to about a six 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.

Substantively, I have some default orientations from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by persuasive or unrefuted argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and 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 this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? 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. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, 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."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Aff, don't just recite a bunch of blurby perms in 2AC, please do some analysis. 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); 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 Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you really explain the lit via analytics), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. I also will need to hear a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; my default view is it is the affirmative's job to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

Sanchari Siddhartha Pal Hire

Last changed on Sat June 15, 2024 at 10:25 AM PDT

Add me to the chain:sandyp21212121@gmail.com

--2x TOC Qualifier and Participant

--4x Policy Bids Total

--2x WA Policy State Qualifier

--1x WA Speech Qualifier and Participant

--1X NSDA Nationals Qualifier

TLDR:

§ I flow on my laptop and type at 200+ WPM and debaters spread at 300+ WPM. Yes Cameras on at all times.

§ I need to see faces to gage all your reactions, I make reactions too. I'm Bipolar and need Lithium, and that's a Cation BTW.Psychiatry is good.

§ I am competing for a body-building show in my local area on June 22nd, I am too low body fat to be taking any emotional trauma BS rn.

§ Debaters are expected to present good ethics as a result. My own political opinions are constantly changing but,

§ I was a very big Flex Debater with Interlake CP (Brian Chen), my senior year so I am super TABula rasa.

§ Check my 2NR Wiki from the 2020-21 CJR Topic, I went for the Courts CP and Stim DA almost every round. but I also went for

§ K's such as Black Deleuze at the Con-Way Classic in 2021. We won Finals Pikking out of a white debater lol.

§ So if you have a style of clothing for your arguments that's ok. I personally like wearing makeup and looking presentable.

§ Please spread in CX or LD divisions. Otherwise, Pufo is not to be spreading.

CP:

§ The uniqueness and link debate determine the threshold at which we evaluate the CP.

§ Sufficiency Framing is good in all instances unless you ask me to judge kick the counterplan.

§ Flash perm text blocks.

DA:

§ Good to write DAs, especially PTX-based DA's with the uniqueness flipping either way, aff or neg, which makes good debates. However

§ That being said, given the current state of tensions, the DA most likely flips Trump is elected now. 2024 would be a landslide.

§ Don't flash blocks for DA debating lol.

§ DA internal links are always solid but make sure they actually have internal links really well with big stick cards such as Starr.

§ Based on competing interpretations and visions of debate.

§ This includes T-USFG debating.

§ Reasonability debating is a tie-breaker to determine the threshold at which we evaluate competing interpretations.

Aff:

§ Most affs have good internal links on this topic, but the same logic with the DA applies, I want to see a clear vision toward big stick impacts.

§ Soft-left affs are beneficial, but make sure you spin framing along with counter-plan debating, really well.

§ Big stick impact aff's don't need their own framing contention lol. Spend your aff resources on more internal links that you can.

§ SPin out of a scenario lol in case you need to go for one of your internal links.

§ See if you can impact turn too, like heg good, co2 ag good, even death good, all have proficient literature bases

AJ Persinger Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2024 at 6:32 AM CDT

she/her. debating @ the university of kansas. debated at lawrence free state. coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow. aaronjpersinger@gmail.com. put me on the chain! have it sent before at or before start time, please and thanks.

tldr

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than small technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

policy

i learned how to debate in kansas and have spent my fair share of time thinking about stock issues and counterplans and disads. i coach teams that exclusively say policy things on the aff and neg. do with that information what you will.

my threshold for voting for dropped arguments has increased with the trend of teams not properly extending their affs/impacts to disads. yes do work on the line-by-line, but explain impacts and solvency mechanisms as you do it. i will not vote on things that you don't extend as a complete argument.

i have spent most of my debate career reading arguments about/in the veins of trans studies, queer theory, black feminism, anti-capitalism, sex work, and embodiment. i love good k debates, but really dislike bad ones that result from overadaptation.

i walk into debates with the assumption that the aff gets to weigh the plan and its consequences, and the neg gets links to all facets of the aff, including performance, affect, representations, etc. framework matters a lot to me and should be used to guide judge instruction if you want me to change the above assumptions.

link texture is good and helps tremendously in close debates...examples, framing arguments, turns case arguments, etc.

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

Gregory Quick Eagan High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM CDT

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

TLDR:Debate should be about having fun and learning. Debate what you want but nothing matters to me until you explain why it should.

Round Framing:

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will be sad. This should not discourage you from asking, but instead I hope it forces you to consider what they didn't read. You should make it obvious why what they didn't read mattered, and prevent them from getting away with reading ~1/3 of the words. Sometimes it won't matter, sometimes it will. If you attempt to explain I won't decrease speaks, but if no attempt is made I will hit you with a -.2.
Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: bad organization, giving up large amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make The Point of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the flow and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
Use prep time until you have clicked save. If it takes >1m to attach and send the email, you should count that as prep time.
Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
Say "Next!" between cards.
Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line. (You should still explain what arg you are referencing ie: "They say the economy is strong, our williams 1922 card shows that the economy is really weak in the horse market!!!"
I think you should send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block. To do so will give you a +.5.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list, but these are areas that I think most of the debaters can specifically improve on when I judge.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and also debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, a functional limit of parts of the NFA-LD circuit, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find evaluator/policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects how I should evaluate the impacts, which would be really good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read important evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, but I will read the article as a whole and not just read your highlighting of it. I will not use the unhighlighted portions for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them. When specifying that I should read a card of the opponent's, you explain what I'm specifically looking for if you want me to understand the request.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. I will reward unique & comprehensible standards/criteria with +.5 pts. (Non-unique: Ground, Limits, etc.)

I default to competing interpretations, but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (literally >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Reading cards straight down on the DA without including them in your explanation is gross.

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Affirmatives get the same treatment when the 2AR goes for the 1-sentence 2AC arg, or the 2AR goes hard on the :10s condo bad.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Definition (Interpretation of Topicality), Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but more robust.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

Breahna Randall Lawrence Free State High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 16, 2024 at 3:55 AM CDT

Hello!! My name is Breahna (bree - AH - nuh). I am a third year debater (and forensicator) at Lawrence Free State. Please add me to the email chain! (or Speech Drop) My email is 10197781@students.usd497.org

TL;DR. Be nice regardless of what happens in the round. Run whatever you feel comfortable with, just please explain it well. I will be flowing and you should do so as well.

Be kind and respectful. Debate is a competitive activity, but it does not give you the excuse to be rude. It is important to make debate a welcoming and safe environment. Debate is a community, just like any other extracurricular activity, and you need to show good sportsmanship and be respectful of your competitors, even if things do get heated.

Please give me a roadmap before the speech and signpost within the speech. This allows me stay organized so I know what you are talking about and how you are responding to specific arguments. This helps everyone in the round understand what is happening, and what you are talking about.

Speaking clearly is ALWAYS better than speaking quickly.I can understand if you speak a little faster (always check with you competitors before doing this, though). However, if you are just mumbling, I won't be able to understand. I can't vote for you if I don't know what you are saying.

Impact calc is super important, especially in rebuttals!! Probability, timeframe, magnitude. Compare your impacts with your competitors and tell me why I should vote for yours. If you can explain that really well, it's likely you will win a lot more rounds because judges will understand why it is important to vote for you.

NEG - just disproving the impact of an aff adv does not disprove the aff. Until you have proved that the aff plan does no good to the world and does not solve, you have not proven to me why I am voting neg in today's debate.

Run whatever you'd like! Just make sure you understand your arguments and explain them well. I'll probably vote for any kind of off-case or on-case arguments, as long as you explain why it matters and why you win. If you don't explain it to me, I likely won't understand it. It makes it hard for me to vote for you if you haven't shown why I should vote for you.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me :)

Be smart, have fun!

Carson Redmond Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Kirk Redmond Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 4:27 PM CDT

Debated for four years at KU for Scott Harris a long time ago. Have remained involved in debate as both of my sons (Carson and Linus) were or are in the activity. Free State is the first tournament I've judged this year, though I'm moderately familiar with the topic. It may take my ear a minute to get acclimated to speed. Please say if you want me to tell you "clearer" if I can't understand. I won't if you don't ask, but that might compromise my flow. I promise I'll catch up by the 2AC.

I don't have an objection to K debates, but I haven't judged a ton of them, have participated in fewer, and ran none myself. Lean toward educating me. K arguments that are specific about assumptions made by the affirmative may double as solvency arguments, and are more persuasive to me. T is usually about allocating ground, but I'm open to other arguments. My presumption is that CPs have to be competitive, but again open to other arguments. I believe your evidence should honestly represent the author's position; if the parts you don't read undermine the tag, that's a problem for your credibility. CX on that topic is persuasive to me.

Speaking of CX, It's very uncomfortable to me when one partner repeatedly answers questions asked of their partner. Almost no rounds are lost in CX. Answering all or most of the questions asked of your partner devalues them, and makes you look domineering.

I don't have hard and fast rules related to speaker points. Please treat each other well, and I'll err on the side of better points as deserved by your speeches.

Be kind to each other. Debate is an amazing activity that you should leave better than you found it. A federal judge I have tried cases to said it best; "you should make me want you to win." Maybe five years ago, I was judging finals at Lawrence High, and the misogyny emanating from one team caused me to drop my pen and vote for the other team after the 1NR. I wasn't the only judge that felt that way. Treating each other with respect enhances your credibility. My only conscious bias is voting against jerks.

Very best of luck to everybody, unless you are unkind.

Lily Ren Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with topic-related jargon.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I don't like death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

Normal Speaks:

27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?

28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away

28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good

29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament

Inflated Speaks

28.5 = baseline

28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh

29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good

29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author". I'm so sick of watching debates where both teams just say "they dropped this so extend it" - WHAT IS "IT"?! I will cap your speaks at 28 if you do this.

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission or generic topic related links. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.

Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore theory is a wash unless you actually know what you're doing. But otherwise read whatever.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate

Graham Revare The Pembroke Hill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 3:56 AM CDT

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

10 minutes before start time:

---Please label offcase in the 1NC.

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to form sentences.

---I am a clarity hawk and will verbally clear you if your words turn into mush. Unclear delivery is functional clipping that violates debate’s nature as a communicative activity

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments if and only if the 1NC is big or a position changes substantially in the block.

---I don't want to hear my name in speeches.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate.

---Do not re-read constructive blocks in rebuttals. This does not count as an extension.

---Speaker points are earned, not demanded.

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. Impartiality is a virtue. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better.

You don't NEED to read a uniqueness card in the 1NC, but the 2A can simply observe that your DA has no uniqueness claim and card dump in the 1AR after you read the cards needed to form a complete argument.

3---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links rather than overwhelming them with slop. Reading links to the plan, drawing lines from the 1AC, and articulating turns case analysis will substantially increase your speaks and likelihood of winning.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

4---Topicality

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say (it is very possible to have a tightly limited topic that impoverishes the neg of meaningful offense). Strong generics also help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---Reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff is our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

5---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Your process counterplan should compete off at least one thing that isn't certainty, immediacy, or "normal means."

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

6---Case: No aff solves. The fact neg teams are often reluctant to prove that is a critical mistake.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

7---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

K affs that defend impact-turnable positions/topic DAd are more persuasive on T. Is this arbitrary? Maybe.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue,” ever.

8---Framework: I’m good for you. My thoughts on this are strongly shaped by my conviction that debate is a technical game whose competitive nature overdetermines its pedagogical outcomes

T could be different from framework, but any conceptual distinction between the two seems difficult to maintain given their colloquial interchangeability.

9---CX: I flow it on a separate sheet. Debaters should pay more attention to CX - it is a vital strategic asset. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

10---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

11---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages. That is premeditated cheating, which will not be tolerated.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Lizzy Sabel Eagan High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

Hey! I'm Lizzy (she/her) & I'm about to be your judge!!

Please put me on the email chain: lizzysabel@gmail.com

Coach at Eagan High School (MN) & did 4 years of high school debate there. I've been judging for 9ish years now. I'm a University of St. Thomas Alumni (Roll Toms), and I double majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

My main goal is for you to have fun, get better at debate, & maintain a safe environment for all debaters.

TLDR: do what you're going to do; my job as a judge is not to police your arguments, it's to evaluate the round presented to me.

Changes for 2024-2025 Season: I will give you bonus speaker points if your wiki is updated, and you send analytics in your docs. Generally, I made this change because I think this good for the debate community, will help you prep, encourages better debating, and is KIND.

----- FYI -----

*Clarity over speed. I will be flowing on paper (most likely stolen from you lol) and voting based on what is on my flow. It is a valuable skill to read your judge, and to do that you need to look at them. Go as fast as you want just make sure you're clear and I'm writing down what you say. That being said, I generally prefer a mid-speed/slower debate with depth of argumentation. If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

*If you want me to think something, you must say it. I try my best to not intervene on any issue and decide the round entirely based on what the debaters do/say in round. I will not make arguments for you that aren't on MY flow.

*Clearly label your arguments. Organize your speeches, label positions, signpost, use short tags, and identify arguments that you are responding to (ex. "off the no link").

*Write my ballot for me. Every judge you have wants an easy decision. In your rebuttal overviews tell me exactly why you are winning this debate (ideally paired with some killer impact analysis).

*I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (ex. timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

*I tend to be skeptical of extinction & nuclear war impacts. If you do have those impacts, pls have a good internal link chain. I'm more favorable to impacts like racism, sexism, ableism, poverty, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexual violence, etc. But, I still enjoy impacts like climate change, resource wars, etc.

*My speaker points are generally high (my guess is an average of 28.5). I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, good cx questions, technical skills, and being respectful to your opponents. You will lose speaker points if you're not flowing (2N's I'm looking at you lol). I love a good joke, pun, tasteful use of slang, and/or pop culture references in a debate :) pls make me laugh

*Tag Team CX is chill, just BE RESPECTFUL. If you want to waste your 3 min of free prep by asking a bunch of questions for your partner, go off, I don't care. Don't get it twisted though, I won't let you take your cross ex for prep; if you don't have any questions, your cx time ends. I will time prep & speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too. Don't steal prep, it's annoying and unfair. I fear that I did it all of the time, so I know all of your little tricks haha and I will call you out on it.

*"Tech over Truth." I generally proscribe to this. Line by line is a lost art.

*If you claim in-round abuse, you need proof. I'm literally begging you.

*You need to respond to case (and have CLASH). It's very hard to win as the neg after conceding the entire aff. Cross applications from other flows are chill, but not nearly enough.

*You must properly kick out of off case/advantages.

----- Specific Argument Breakdown -----

T: Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. My favorite argument as a debater was T, so I generally have a higher threshold for what needs to be said on the flow (for both sides). I generally believe that jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote (why is nobody going for this anymore smh). RVIs are dumb... unless there is (once again) proof of abuse in round. SPEC debates are not interesting to me, but I will listen.

FW: This is just a glorified T debate. Switch-side isn't a great offensive argument, but I will vote on it if I'm forced lol. I think the neg should have a TVA to make their FW viable. I just need teams to tell me what debates look like under their model.

I tend to abide by the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity so long as they are well-substantiated. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I generally default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policymaker.

Theory: I think condo can be good, but can be convinced otherwise if there is in round abuse. I will probably reject the argument and not the team, unless given a good reason to. PIKs/PICs are fine, but I will probably favor a reasonable perm explanation.

Ks: I'm familiar with critical literature. I'm less familiar with high theory than I am with traditional Ks (Neolib/Cap, Security, etc), identity-based Ks, and other structuralism Ks. I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. I'm generally not convinced by a link of omission.

I deeply respect the hustle of a 2/3 card K, but you better flesh it out well enough in the block if it will be in the 2NR. Please tell me what the world of the alt looks like!!! Ks function like vague DAs to me, but with an alt that usually makes no sense. If you don't want to put in the work to articulate an alternative, commit to the bit & run your K like a DA (with some FW on why that should be legit).

DAs: Do whatever you want, just please read all parts of the DA or you will lose this argument (unx, link, intl, impact). Note: impact preferences above in point 4.

CP: Most CPs on this topic are not competitive. Just ~please~ have a net benefit. Multiple planks are almost always abusive. PICs are probs legit.

Stock Issues: Inherency is a part of the affs burden of proof and definitely a voter. More people should exploit that!!

Performance: I'm down for it! Very cool when done well. You need theory to back yourself up. Explain everything very in-depth and clearly articulate why it matters more than the topic, FW, and/or T.

Jayden Sampat Barstow School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 21, 2024 at 5:05 AM CDT

Jayden Sampat

they/them

jsamdebate@gmail.com

email chain >> speech drop

Wake Forest '28

Barstow '24, currently helping coach there

done debate since middle school (though that doesnt really count) done K, T, and DA/CP strats, comfortable with anything except heavy process cp debates - like im fine with a process cp but if both teams are going to be top level definition heavy, i may get a bit lost without clear explanation and implication

if you have any accommodation requests email me or ask me before the round. also email me abt any questions you have before the round. also, side note. if your opponents ask you not to spread, dont spread. dont know why you think thats a choice. AND teams who dont spread, if one partner cant spread, neither should be spreading. i have been involved in too many non-spreading debates where one partner doesnt spread and the other does and i think its unfair that the other team can't spread at all

TLDR

you do you. I enjoy all arguments and styles and i will evaluate everything evenly as long as it isn't a harmful arg (i will give u a loss and tank your speaks for any intentional misgendering, racism, queerphobia, sexism, ableism, zionism etc). have fun, don't stress- ik that’s easier said than done but do your best and lmk if there's any way I can help make debate a good learning experience for you.

basic things

-most of what I've learned is from Lucia Scott, Alaina Walberg, Gabe Cook, Maeve, and all the Wake Forest coaching staff.

-speed is good, but clarity is better. if you can spread really fast, go for it, but make sure you are clear. i will clear you 3x before I give up flowing. and I have auditory processing issues so pls dont spread at like 400 words a minute

-open cx is fine, but I don't want you to not let your partner ask any questions during their cx

-JUDGE INSTRUCTION. please spend a few seconds in your rebuttal speeches writing out my ballot for me. what impact should i put first in this debate and why? if u don’t do this then idk what i should evaluate first so even if it’s just a little bit, pls do it.

-ask questions after the round. i want to help you understand things. also feel free to email me after the round for any questions

Preferences:

have fun. debate is an educative space where we all can learn, pls don’t ruin that for some by being disrespectful, misogynistic, homophobic, etc (i will fill out my ballot then and there and give u lowest possible speaks). I do my best to write out every piece of feedback, so have a bit of patience if i take a while with the rfd. doin my best here folks

Topicality:

I love topicality. especially against clearly untopical affs. its so fun. do what you want to do here and ill sit back and enjoy the show. also love t substantial if you do the math on it fr

Love a good disad debate. Also love when an aff straight turns it. any da is fun to judge but these ideally should have a cp attached to them to absorb any risk of aff solvency

Down for a good cp/da strat, make sure u have a net benefit. dont forget sufficiency framing and make sure you impact turn the other adv if going for an adv cp. not the best for a bunch of process cps, i get lost in theory debates pretty easily esp if you are spreading theory blocks.

Kritiks:

my favorite part of debate but also probably means i hold you to a higher threshold of explanation than i do on other off case positions. am most familiar with cap, queer theory, bioptx, and death k, but as long as u explain ur worldview im good. if you are going to go for the k in the last speech, please know what your alternative does - unless ur going for fw and kicking the alt. Im also down to judge a good framework debate tho. make sure you do impact calc on here because that will factor greatly into my decision esp if the aff goes for extinction ow and case first

Case:

i know this is on everyone’s paradigm but case is underrated, and i think all teams should do more work here. i love watching impact turn debates on case, and will definitely vote on them. i also will vote neg on presumption, assuming the neg successfully constructs those args out in the 2nr. in HS i gave a 5 min 1nr on case, and loved it.

K Affs

love k affs, normally run these or soft left affs. try to stick to one theory of power or at least make it coherent. dont defend too much. all that said, i really enjoy debating k affs and judging them so have fun with it.

Ks v K Affs

my favorite debates. Shout out to kentucky AE for a fire k v k debate. these are hard for judges to adjudicate sometimes, sans impact calc on the link debate.

fw v k affs

fine for these debates, just dont be violent. i will vote on fw if you win it. you do you, as long as you do it well. i think ssd and tvas are detrimental to certain k affs so keep that in mind, they are great at absorbing offense. make sure your tva is topical? please?

limits are fake and gay, and a social construct? - Mae Dingley 2024 (yes, i will vote neg on limits if you win it lol)

Speaker Points

I start with a 28.5 for speaks and move up or down from there. 29 means I think you should break, 29.5+ means I think you should be in late elims.

i probably wont give u a 30 unless its your last high school debate and you tell me

Bea Sanderson Hire

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 4:58 AM CDT

Email: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

I'm currently debating with the University of Iowa. I'm a big fan of k debate generally speaking, but read what you want. I default to tabula rasa, tech>truth unless you tell me otherwise.

Policy/CX

->AFFS

I honestly used to have a bit of distaste for policy-style affirmatives when I was younger, but after a bit of a break from CX to coach PF and focus on school, I've had a change of heart about them. I enjoy these debates a lot more now because a well-executed planned aff requires a ton of strategy and solid research. I like affs that have concise, well explained internal link chains and thus love to see good, in-depth internal link debating as a way to access offense (or to shut it down). I especially love it when the I/L debate starts in CX and will flow it if I notice it. I emphasize this so much because I often find myself defaulting to the team with the most closely analyzed I/Ls when trying to decide impact calc post-2AR/FF.

I also think that your solvency mechanism is incredibly important, and the more well-explained it is, the more likely aff teams are to win the debate. Conversely, I also will eat up good, specific, in-depth solvency debating from neg teams, especially when implicated on other flows. Clash is so cool. The S/M should also probably be included in the plan text. Honestly though, just have your policy debate and I'll be tab.

->KAFFs

It's what I've had the most experience with personally. I've read a lot of disability studies and found it to be pretty formative. I'm slightly biased against wacky, obscure pomo and slightly biased towards queerness/disability/anti-blackness/unique performances. Doesn't really matter though, I'm still gonna be tab unless you tell me otherwise. I like these debates because they're my bread and butter, but find that my standards for affirmatives have increased a lot.
On Framework, you need a topic link unless you can convince me otherwise, which really depends on the form/content of your aff. Framework, in an ideal world, acts like a filter, whereas kaffs must necessarily have a reason to exist due to transformative potential proven by things like topic link(s), examples, a method/set of tactics/epistemology, analysis of the debate space/community, a clear model of debate, RoB/J, etc. Unfortunately, however, neither the world nor framework debates are ideal. Neg teams very often let kaffs off the hook on T by reading the most generic, predictable blocks ever, which most decent K teams will already have a good bit of blocks on themselves because they only ever really need to beat 2-3 arguments + case. This means two things: 1. that insufficient framework debating on the negative proliferates a lot of redundant, non-transformative KAFFs, and 2. KAFFs that pass the filter should give me good analysis of the aff method/model of debate. These two things are paramount here. If you want to beat framework, you need to explain to me very clearly what I'm voting for, because neg teams get the luxury (or burden) of defending the status quo of debate. Debate is a game with very broad implications for things like subject formation, which is probably pretty important, so convince me your model is better for that.
On cap, contextual links get rewarded, bad links make me sad.Y/N Perms in a method debate goes either way and comes down to warrants. Neg teams get a thumbs-up for leveraging the alt and clashing with the kaff on a level of tactics. KAFF teams get a thumbs up for good link debating and leveraging a method that probably does something.
On the ballot K, I haven't seen these make it to the 2NR much recently, but they're cool I guess.

On other k's/clash debates, I love these, especially when they're well executed. I don't have many thoughts here because these debates can be so creative that I'd rather not step on your toes. Make your links contextual and explain them clearly through direct analysis of the aff, and I'll be happy.

->Case

I love good case debating. The more specific the better. Case/impact turns are really exciting to me. I really appreciate tactical defensive arguments that debaters make the most out of in the block/2NR. I'm ok with death good/spark/etc. Hiding K links here is probably ok, but I generally find tricks debate to be a bit silly.

->Kritiks
I'm a big fan. I like smart, contextual link analysis, so the side that wins framework/their model of debate and the link debate probably wins the round. This is especially true when debaters break down the implications of the fw/link debates together to leverage against the aff/perm. I used to think that kicking the alt was heresy, but that seems kinda silly now, so I'm down for a linear disad if it comes down to it. Links to the plan/method are awesome, but not necessarily imperative. I'm down with your standard range of lit bases, but especially like identity args (disability, anti-blackness, queerness) and interesting analyses of capitalism (racial cap, beller, etc). I used to love to read silly Ks when I was in high school, but now find them kinda annoying unless they're really creative or really funny, which are both qualities debaters sometimes struggle with.

->DA

I see the merit and time it takes to do good disad debating, but I was never personally interested in it outside of PTX. I think wack UQ or I/L chains are easy dealbreakers for me here. Thus, neg teams should explain both of those things IN DEPTH with GOOD CARDS and WARRANTS. On the flip, AFFs should start pushing on the I/Ls as soon as 1NC cross starts. Aside from that, AFFs get happy faces and good speaks for successfully straight turning them :)

->CP

There's so much to say here. I think that the counterplan is one of the most strategic arguments in debate, which means that condensing all of my personal takes on the different kinds of CPs is both impractical and would force you to read my paradigm longer than you want to. Ultimately, I think that AFFs shouldn't hesitate to push the counterplan on theory, especially when it starts acting cheaty (lots of planks, questionable PICs, etc). That being said, I'm a big fan of PIC debating with an INB. I also think that if you're going for a CP+ENB, there needs to be a clear explaination of how the CP resolves the net benefit. All in all, pretty cool argument that's slightly outside my active wheelhouse.

->T

I'll vote on it and think I might really enjoy seeing a true T-hack team. Teams often underestimate/deprioritize T. Evidence quality and an intimate explaination of the AFFs violation are really important here if you want it to be the 2NR.

Fawzan Sayem Blue Valley West 4 rounds

Haddie Schedler Barstow School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 6:15 AM CDT

put me on the email chain: fiatshieldsthelink at gmail.com

email chain > speech drop.

senior at Barstow

they/she

plz don't call me judge. "haddie" "you there" or anything else work fine

TLDR(though the rest of the paradigm is probably good to read)

I'll adapt to your preferences. Literally, go for whatever you want. If you win it, I'll vote on it.

If you need emotional support at any point before, during, or after the round plz let me know. i struggled with really bad anxiety my novice year, so i get it more than you know and i'll do anything i can to help. novice year (and debate!) is supposed to be fun.

Basic things

tech>truth

^ ik every judge says this and doesn't always mean it, but its probably the most important thing for me as a judge. i think my preferences should stay out of the round and if you genuinely think you won an arg on a technical level and dont agree w my decision you can and should post-round me.

^ if the argument that someone dropped is a bad arg, my threshold for the tech to beat it and how new said tech can be is significantly less. smart analytics beat bad args.

im fine with spreading but if i don't get it on my flow its not an arg

i think the aff's job is to prove the status quo is bad and they can solve what is bad. i think the negative's job is to prove the aff is a bad idea.

im a 2n - the 2ar doesn't get new answers. sorry not sorry. you'll probably make some anyway so at least make sure its somewhat in your 1ar.

don't care what you read

if someone in the round is overtly and obviously being actively harmful - that will result in me intervening)

+0.1 speaks for intentionally making everyone (or me) laugh (max +0.3 total)

tell me before, after, or during the round EITHER "I am kenough" or make a brat reference and it's an auto +0.1 boost

plz ask questions. write down the rfd. it helps.

don't care what style of cross you do

im very expressive during speeches. don't take it personally. im judging your arguments, not you. im working on it lol.

u don't need to take prep to send out speeches, and I'm very lenient with tech issues etc. just don't steal prep or take 10 minutes to send out a speech.

Other

aspec - don't hide it ur novice year lol

ks outside of cap - go for it. i love 'em. it makes me mildly upset when people say they're familiar with lit, list every lit base, and have only actually read one of them in round or none of them out of round. I've read fem and baudrillard in debates the most but I've read mostly queer theory, set col, and antiblackness lit outside of rounds. all that should mean is that i should have a strong base for whatever your niche k is you've stolen from ur varsity members.

^ for the love of all that is good in this world if you go for a K in the 2NR i need mitigation on case or explanation on the k that implicates the solvency or impacts of case.

not a fan of the 10 off strat novice year. ill flow it, but i might be a bit grumpy by the end of the 1NC.

if you ever end up giving a 2AR in front of me and the neg has cold dropped condo: point out that they've dropped condo at the top and extend ur standards/why that means its an aff ballot (max 1 min) then either sit down or go on to case and the offense the 2NR went for. ill vote on condo, but if its cold dropped id rather not listen to 5 minutes of it.

Lucia Scott Barstow School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 8:04 AM CDT

My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them

Email chains > speech drop. lucia.scott at barstowschool.org

Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)

Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)

Meta things

Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.

I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. At the end of the day, my goal is to intervene as little as possible. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.

I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. If you think an argument is silly, it shouldn't be too hard to beat.

What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.

Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in to try to freak out the 2A.

My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped or mostly dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.

Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate.

Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.

I read cards to make sure you aren't clipping, but what they actually say doesn't factor into my decision unless there's some contestation by the debaters about the content of the evidence. Don't let a team get away with reading garbage cards that don't say anything; I'm not going to make that argument for you.

Procedurals/ Theory

I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's really a difference between three vs four or four vs five or five vs six conditional advocacies.

With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan." This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn; double turns are not theory arguments y'all.

For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?

I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.

Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???

Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

CP's

On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.

I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks just designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.

I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.

I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.

K's

I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.

My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.

Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.

I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.

The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate.

Aff framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating").

K Affs

I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.

I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.

Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.

On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.

I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.

Other things:

New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.

Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivializing arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.

Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.

So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.

Kaitlynn Sedich Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 5:06 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain (or Speech Drop!)

kaitlynn.sedich@gmail.com

I DON'T SHAKE HANDS!

Hi! I'm Kaitlynn (they/she), and I am a senior debater from Free State. I have been involved in debate for a while now, and I know a lot about how it functions and this topic. With that being said, I don't want to stress you out, so treat me like a parent judge who actually knows what they're doing and how to weigh the ballot/different arguments. And if you ask for oral comments on speaking or strategy, I will give them, but everything will be on my ballot so don't worry! I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and coherent. I also don't mind cursing in the round, it adds passion, so do whatever you enjoy/will help you win:). I also WILL NOT vote for you if you are harming the way the debate is supposed to function or being bigoted in any way. Let's get started!

TL;DR - Read what you are comfortable reading, be nice to each other, and format the speech so I can flow easily. If you have any questions, just ask!

Now for the nitty-gritty:

Aff Case: I'm pretty open to whatever approach you might have or decide to take. However, I believe that the 1AC should be appropriately timed and understandable, that you shouldn't only have extinction impacts, and that you must understand what you are reading. The 1AC cross-ex should be the easiest to follow and is an excellent way to preface the debate. The only other thing I have to say here is that I think that lying in the 2AR is a fast way to count yourself out of the debate - lay things out for me how they were, and then explain why you still win (I love a good "even-if" argument).

Neg Approach: Don't utilize time sucks, I hate them and think they are cheater-y. I think running less offense and fully understanding it while having time for the aff case is in your best interest anyway. In the end, a lot of people think that being negative means losing the ballot because they choose to approach it that way. It's actually a really good place to be in since you can read pretty much anything as long as it links and the aff might not have something to answer it with/understand the argument. Use this to your advantage and be strategic - if I have to hear both you and your partner in the negative block say the exact same thing instead of splitting it, I will go crazy. Make sure you know what you're talking about and you should be set.

Neg Specifics:

T: I am okay with T as long as you don't read it as a time suck and it's not your go-to strategy - only read it if it is necessary.

DA: If you have all four parts of the DA, you're doing great! I haven't found/seen one I haven't liked or viewed as not feasible in-round, but make sure you don't use generic links - or if you do, explain them well enough that they don't seem generic.

CP: I absolutely love certain CPs, but I can get pickier about how they work in the debate - like if you want to read the States CP, make sure you have solvency for the States specifically because municipal governments have different governmental frameworks. I do have some hated CPs, but none are super relevant this year, so you should be fine.

K: I am not a K-Debater, but I do love hearing K's! If you feel comfortable reading one as a champ novice, go for it, maybe you'll knock my socks off! I am super familiar with Capitalism, Imperialism, Security, Fem IR, and SetCol, so if you are reading those, yippee! If not, don't worry, but make sure to overexplain your literature - I love learning new things.

Theory: Theory debates are cool! I don't think you should come into the round prepared to run theory, but if it comes up, go for it! I will most likely agree with the person who brought up the theory argument in the first place, but everything is relative because tech > truth.

Thanks for reading this far if you did, and good luck in the round!

Michael Shelton Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:36 AM CDT

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.

Logan Short Wichita East 6 rounds None

Ariana Smith Washburn Rural High School 4 rounds None

William Soper Manhattan High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 10:37 AM CDT

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged dozens of debates on the topic.

I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. ASPEC, counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy, and impact turns which argue large portions of the population should die are not persuasive to me.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

Biggest issues in my decisions on the IP topic.
1. If you are going for a kritik, you need to contest the case OR overwhelmingly win an explicit framework argument that tells me the consequences of the plan shouldn't matter.

Contesting the case doesn't necessarily mean reading impact defense or traditional solvency arguments, but you should explain why winning your link arguments disprove or turn aff advantages. For example, if you read a China threat K with links about the plan's China war advantage, your 2NR should also include some defense to the aff's other advantage(s), provided the aff extended any of those.

Neg framework interpretations which tell me to totally ignore the consequences of the plan are an uphill battle in front of me. You are almost always better off telling me why the aff's advantages are incorrect and arguing that your impacts of the kritik outweigh, rather than telling me to ignore the aff.

2. This topic seems very big and every aff seems very confusing. I will reward specific strategies and case debating with higher speaker points.

3. I am not a great judge for planless affirmatives. If you plan on reading a planless affirmative, I should be lower on your pref sheet. It's not that I hate them, I just really struggle to understand the aff's answers topicality, presumption, or even "why should we negate your affirmative"-style arguments. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Kristen StoutHart Missouri State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 7:29 AM CDT

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

Jessica Sun Blue Valley West 6 rounds

Larry Swanson Olathe North High School 1 rounds

Amanda Sweet De Soto High School 5 rounds

Lynx Taylor Lansing HS 6 rounds

Hannah Townsend Park Hill South High School 3 rounds None

Luke Vu Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 7:03 AM CDT

add me to the email chain!

luke.vu0@gmail.com

debate however you want to, I'll adapt and my paradigm is likely to not fully encompass my views on debate
Good debating will always overcome any of my biases, these are just defaults if things are uncontested

Notes for online debate
If you raise your pitch while spreading, please go slower so you don't peak or modify your gain filter so your audio does not cut out
Prefer cameras on including prep

If you have a fun strategy feel free to run it in front of me - this excludes exclusionary strats

Good for speed, just make sure you're clear, if I clear you and you don't change then don't be surprised if my flow misses an argument you made

Evidence quality and ethics are highly valuable to me, although I typically let the flow decide what is "true". That being said I have a low threshold for ignoring bad cards, if your opponent reads bad cards jump on this. If you don't, I won't do the work for you.

Additionally rehighlighting their evidence will always boost your speaks and be very good at zeroing whatever argument they want the card to make. However, make sure you are right about what you point out.

feel free to post round if you don’t think my decision was clear

Topicality -

Default to competing interps (this means you need to say reasonability and extend it through the 2ar)

Topic specific definitions > general definition > noncontextual definitions
I can be persuaded otherwise but this is what I default to

I enjoy evaluating T debates and would consider myself good for them.

T USfg -

Negative teams need to answer the impact turns by being specific about how their impacts implicate the affirmative model's solvency. Your education/fairness arguments mean nothing if it is key to something that the affirmative is critiquing.

Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate, broadly saying debate is violent or procedural fairness is key are unpersuasive absent a reason why the other team's model does not solve for your impact or exacerbates it.

Clash > fairness > education > skills

Affirmatives need to define the role of the negative

K Affs -

Teams that counter-define the resolution and create an interesting model of debate will more often than not win in front of me. I find full impact turns to T less persuasive relatively but will still vote on them.

Any affirmative that is willing to defend itself and its purpose in the debate space may be read in front of me. Advocate for what you want my ballot to represent and I will typically use it as such unless you lose framework.

Theory -

Have a high threshold for most arguments as a I believe theory should typically be used to create reasons to reject the team

Disadvantages -

Turns case arguments are important to me, especially when comparing extinction impacts

Soft left affs should look to win the framing page with more than just "extinction never happens".

The best way to zero a disad is with evidence indicts.

There is not always a risk of the link/impact and I will typically read the cards surrounding those two most thoroughly in my decision

internal links need to be debated out more often, they're often the sketchiest part of any argument.

Counterplans -

If you are going to read cards on the counter plan it should have a solvency advocate in the 1NC, otherwise I will be easily persuaded by theory

CPs based off 1AC evidence are some of my favorite to judge

I lean neg on the question of sufficiency framing so comparison of the world post-aff vs post-cp are very important to me

Kritiks -

I would say I'm a good judge for any K

I think that the block should have a significant amount of link explanation (I love link specificity based upon internal links), therefore I'm more empathetic to grouping blippy links in the 1AR as a way to deter the link shotguns that seem to have become more popular. This is because too often I see teams throw out 5 or 6 links in the block to have the 1AR drop one they apparently aren't prepared to go for in the 2NR and end up collapsing the debate down to the one argument which was covered. (this will tank your speaks as a 2N)

Framework is key to how I evaluate the alt and what my ballot represents - teams can still win absent framework and it is a viable 2nr in many cases if you're ahead on the link debate

On that note, affs should try to isolate whether the alt is material or not as early in the debate as possible, this informs a lot of the debate and letting the negative run away with this will lose you debates.

Jamie Welch Blue Valley Southwest High School 4 rounds

Jamie Wilborn Shawnee Mission East High School 6 rounds

Jacob Wilkus Shawnee Mission East High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 2:00 PM CDT

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. I previously coached at the Barstow School, the Pembroke Hill School, and Lawrence Free State.

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.

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.

Anwen Williams Lawrence Free State High School 4 rounds

Owen Williams The Pembroke Hill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 6:24 AM CDT

Coached:

2023-2024---Shawnee Mission East (Fiscal Redistribution)

2024-Present---The Pembroke Hill School (IP)

Debated:

2019-2023---Truman High School (Arms Sales, CJR, Water, NATO)

2023-Present---University of Kansas (Nukes, Energy)

Background Information

He/They

Please call me Owen. Not judge.

I would like to be on the chain but will not read evidence during speeches. My email is owenwilliamsdebate@gmail.com

Pro-scrappy debate. Pro-small schools killing it.

I was taught debate by Parker Hopkins. My debate opinions have been heavily influenced by Maddie Pieropan, especially in the domain of critical arguments and framework.

T/L

Tech + truth > tech > truth

Clarity + speed > clarity > speed

Clash is good. Clash evasion is bad. Teams should engage with the arguments made by the other team. If your preferred 2NR is a Process CP or a non-germane K then I am not the best judge for you. If your 2NR is a competitive counterplan, topic disad, politics/election disad, or a contextualized and nuanced K then I will be an amazing judge for you.

However, you should make any argument as long as it's not something problematic. The judge should do 99% of the adaptation and the debaters should do their thing.

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. Stop evading clash.

Case

In-depth case debating is a lost art. Revive this art and your speaks and decision will most likely reflect such.

Impact turn debates are my favorite debates to judge.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does. Defer to solvency advocates, 1ACs should have an advocate that says exactly what the plan does.

K AFFs/Framework

I've been on both sides of these debates and I don't think that I lean particularly far to one side.

Procedural fairness is an impact, but not in the way that teams are increasingly explaining it. If the fairness arguments that you're making are just a workaround to get to the clash impact, you should be going for clash in front of me. Buzz phrases such as "debate is a game" or "T is a-priori" to answer substantive framework arguments are not responsive and will earn you low speaks.

Affirmatives need a clear and obvious theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made-up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I will award teams for debating with nuance, complexity, and maximizing clash. Similarly, I will be frustrated and you should not pref me if your strategy relies on spamming 'disads' without contextualizing your arguments or neglecting to debate them in nuance until the 2AR.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes. I'm going to have a high threshold for 2AC/1AR/2AR consistency.

I agree with Maddie Pieropan here - "Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all critical AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained."

I don't think teams should be reading planless AFFs in the novice division.

T/Theory v Policy

If you're reading a plan it should be a topical one. I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability.

Precision + predictability > debateability

Extra-resolutional procedures are often frivolous and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument. I do not enjoy adjudicating these debates and I will certainly be grumpy.

1ACs should be built to beat the 5-10 most common CPs on the topic.

Conditionality is good, contradicting advocacies are bad. Dispo is probably great. PICs are good and are one of the most competitive forms of counterplans. AFFs should have to defend the entirety of the AFF.

I lean NEG on: Condo, PICs, ADV CPs, agent CPs, 50 state fiat, condition CPs

I lean AFF on: Consult CPs, International CPs, multi-actor CPs, the vast majority of Process CPs

PICs out of substance are good, word PICs are probably bad.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Non-condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument instead of the team. Unless there is a warranted reason to reject the team in the 2AC or a cross-application to a different flow, I will often let NEGs get away with nothing more than "reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Specific links > generics. This should be pretty obvious.

Link turns case arguments are good. Like very very good.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2NR.

Framework debate matters more to me than most. I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I think most neg framework interps and ROBs are self-serving and probably detrimental to debate. " I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action. In the 2NR I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or the links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense.

Life has value.

If you read a K that you are not well-versed in it will be incredibly obvious. This is going to make the debate hell for everyone involved and tank your speaks.

How to get good speaks:

Being kind and inclusive to everyone in the round

Clarity

Smart concessions

Sending analytics

Going for the impact turn

How to get bad speaks:

Stealing prep

Being rude

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" Flow or take prep for it.

Refusing disclosure

Trying to shake hands with me (?) weird thing to do

How to get 0 speaks + L:

Any form of bigotry including but not limited to: homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism

Clipping: I will not be reading evidence during the speech. The opposing team will need a video recording of the clipping and will need to stake the round on the violation

Zach Willingham Washburn Rural High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 7:30 PM EDT

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

I’m studying math and environmental engineering. I don’t know much about intellectual property.

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. Cross ex about things that will be relevant to the 2NR and 2AR.

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

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

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

Perm double bind makes a lot of sense to me. The negative needs a reason why the plan and alt are mutually exclusive, a reason why the inclusion of the plan makes the alt insolvent, or framework offense the perm can’t resolve (this is your best bet).

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

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

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. I will subconsciously judge you need for bad formatting.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

Lauren Woodall Lawrence Free State High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu August 29, 2024 at 3:05 PM CDT

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

Grad Student @ Wichita State

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence Free State

Conflicts: Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State, Wichita State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

Policy

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki.

Condo

Kicking planks + judge kick = probably bad

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

Alexa Ymker Olathe North High School 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

19th Annual KCKCC Policy Debate TOC Qualifier

2024 — Kansas City, KS/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges