EXPERIENCE: I competed at State all four years of high school in the 4 speaker category on the negative side. I went completely undefeated, winning the State Championship in 2017. I have also been judging semi-regularly since then.

PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa - this is your debate, argue it how you see fit. I will be flowing and keeping track of arguments. Below are some more defined opinions of mine on arguments, but I'm open to anything.

TOPICALITY: this is honestly my favorite stock issue when it's used correctly. If you are using it include standards AND voters, or it's not a complete argument. T is also AU PRIORI.

DISADVANTAGES: I will listen to any DA no matter how generic it is. That being said, generic links don't hold as well as specific links, especially when AFF knows what they're doing. I am fine with any impact, you know its always fun when things end in nuclear war.

COUNTER PLANS: if you run one of these, please know what you are doing. There is a right and a wrong way to run and argue against a counterplan, and if you don't argue it right, you will lose my vote.

KRITIKS: I will listen it to. If there's one type of argument I don't particularly like, its this one. But if you feel it necessary, go for it, but be able to justify why you are using a kritik.

OTHER THINGS: I will only vote on things brought up in the round, so if there is a glaring contradiction and its not pointed out, I will not be considering it. I don't really care how fast you talk, just make sure that everyone can understand you.

If you have any questions about my judging style, just ask before the round starts!

Hello my name is Shannon Catlin. I have judged debate for the last four years, while also participating as a debater in my high school career. When I sit down to a debate I prefer to hear evidence based proof with a footprint to back your sources. I also look for if a debater understands what they are presenting, explaining in your own terms.

I like to see what your policy is and how your plan of action will work with proof and funding. I watch for confident body language and being able to make eye contact with your peers.

I will allow spectators if the participants also agree, however they will not be allowed electronic devises.

Let's have s great debate.

I debated in high school for all four years and participated in state debate twice. I will not vote often on topicality unless the aff case is blatantly untopical or if the topicality isn't answered. Counter-plans are fine they just need to meet all counter plan standards. Stock issues in the round is my most important voting point.

When it comes to forensics I will just judge according to the requirements of the event you are performing in.

I'm a flow judge. I'll judge based on what you give me to work with. I think that all arguments should be refuted on either side and that no argument should go unaddressed. All contestants should treat their opponents with respect and civility.

I don't believe Kritiks have a place in policy debate and I ignore them the majority of the time. Also, if you are running a Counterplan you must know how to use it.

Have a great debate and a great season! -Jake

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

1. Communicative skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

2. Skill emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating") best describes my paradigm or approach to judging debate.

3. A fairly rapid delivery presentation is acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

4. Counterplans are acceptable even if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

5. Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

6. I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

7. I find kritiks acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Pronouns: he/his

stegman76@gmail.com

I used to coach at a 2A high school in Kansas. I'm a stock issue as well as policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important; however, I hate T arguments that are just there to fill time.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are something I'm not super comfortable judging well. I've only seen them run once or twice...by novices at the beginning of their debate career. I'm not opposed to them, but don't feel I could accurately gauge if a K is run well or not.

Don't just read evidence and leave it at that - analyze, analyze, analyze!

I prefer moderate contest speed. Not a super big fan of spreading.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.