Tabroom.com

Washburn Rural Debate Invitational

2024 — Topeka, KS/US

Varsity Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Claire Ain Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 6:48 AM CDT

I debated at Blue Valley North from 2020-2024 and now I'm currently a freshman debating at KU.

email: claireelizabethain@gmail.com -- prep does not stop until you hit send on the email.

I understand this topic to be more intricate and complex than many in the past, so err on the side of over-explanation earlier in the debate. It is your burden to explain topic-specific concepts that would be difficult for the average person to understand.

I care more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments in a quality manner than the type of arguments you choose to read. I will vote on any argument on my flow as long as it's articulated at a high technical level. That being said, I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence based arguments that rely on the ability to prove an undesirable effect of the affirmative. I think there is an increasing trend in negative teams trying to find more convoluted ways to avoid disproving the desirability of a plan, but obviously that's a debate to be had. I am not a fan of scouring my flow to piece together arguments and think that it is a form of judge intervention. If you read evidence with a purpose, speak clearly, and use your flow (if you are not flowing, I don't understand why I should flow you) to refute arguments, you will receive high speaks from me. Judge instruction is an important part of final rebuttals and you should clearly explain what earns you the ballot.

It feels as though less debates I've watched or been apart of have actually talked about the affirmative. I don't think most negative teams utilize case enough --- not including reading 7 impact defense cards. "I'm willing to vote on defensive arguments against incomplete affirmatives." - Brian Box.

If affirmative teams are asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX you need to answer. If your plan is the rez + one word and lacking a detailed explanation I will automatically assume that that the CP competes and the DA links. The less specific answer, the lower the burden for what the neg has to do to win vagueness becomes.

There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. If I can't understand the argument you are making do not be surprised when it does not make it onto my flow. I will clear you twice, if you remain unclear I will stop flowing your speech.

On this note, I have hospitalizing migraines that make me somewhat sensitive to sound. All I ask is that you don't literally scream at me while you're speaking.

Evidence you read must make an argument. Highlighting three buzzwords and explaining something in the tag will make me give the opposing team more leeway in their responses. I believe that internal link cards have become especially outrageous and are under utilized when comparing impacts.

In almost every instance of a DA or a K the link matters most. I probably look at link specificity more than most judges. If I have a hard time pinpointing something specifically bad about the affirmative, I will have a hard time voting for you. It's very convincing to me if you explain how the link (or the entire) argument disproves the case or makes the aff advantages irrelevant. In the context of a K, if the alt is contextualized multiple times in different ways your speaks will drop. If you choose to go for the alt I need a clear explanation of what the alt looks like and why it matters. In K debates the team that slows down, and best explains their argument is the team that will likely get my ballot

I think that planless affirmatives sacrifice solvency or links to the topic for framework preempts, which make me believe that they are incomplete. The best way to debate in front of me is to slow down, refute arguments, and explain to me what you want me to vote on. If you are just blasting blocks into your computer you probably won't be happy with the result of the debate. Both aff and neg need to contextualize the round to the affirmative. I also need (need) a reason that you have won the ballot in this debate. I think often times this just becomes a block battle that has almost no interaction -- don't do this or you will probably be unhappy.

I am most comfortable in "policy vs policy" or "policy vs k" rounds, but believe in my ability to give a coherent RFD no matter the style of debate.

Ask any questions before or after the round/tournament and I will be happy to answer.

Madelyn Atkins Shawnee Mission South High School 2 rounds

Carson Bath Blue Valley North 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 1:49 PM EDT

washburn rural 24

ku 28

he/him

carson.bath6 @ gmail.com

update---please don't call me judge, i don't vibe with it

debate is a game, and i enjoy this game. i have engaged in both policy and critical styles of debate and am willing to vote on whatever, assuming that it is not racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. though i view debate as a game, this does not mean that i will not vote on arguments to the contrary so long as you win debate should be a form of activism or that the education we garner matters more than procedural fairness or clash. rather, everything in debate is motivated by competitive incentives, and my decision will reflect who i believe did the better debating. i think the best debates occur when you do what you do best.

tech > truth. to me, this means that i will attempt to minimize intervention and that all arguments are viable as long as you win them (excluding those outlined above). minimizing intervention also means minimizing how my predispositions to specific arguments influence the round. i do not enjoy it when a round becomes about what the judge wants to hear rather than what you want to debate about. many judges contend that arguments such as “death good” are harmful or a bad argument that you shouldn’t go for. i don’t care, and i think people should just answer it. if you believe that these arguments are bad, just win that death is bad and we should avoid it, which should not be difficult to do…

inserting re-highlightings is fine if you explain what it says and how that interacts with their arguments. if you don’t care to tell me what it says, why would i care to read it for you?

i will not evaluate things that happen outside the round. that is not my job and should be resolved with your coaches, their coaches, or if it is that serious, resolve it with tab. these arguments are not falsifiable and even if you have receipts i am not going to make decisions based on whether or not i think debaters are good or bad people because i probably have no clue who you are.

flow the debate and i will flow your speeches. if you spend time answering an argument that was not made, but was in the doc, your speaks will be lower. if you drop an argument that wasn’t in the doc because you weren’t flowing, your speaks will be lower. flowing makes for better debates. i will also abide by my flow when making my decision and will not stop flowing because you told me to. i may not catch everything if you are reading as fast as you can directly into your laptop screen. this is not because i am bad at flowing or that i don't care to pay attention, but it is nearly impossible for me to understand you and write down what you are saying without pen time. because of this, i would prefer if you slowed down slightly in rebuttals. not answering arguments where they are made and forcing me to look through my flows for you is a form of judge intervention. answer arguments where they are made.

i have no issue with speed so long as you are clear. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing your speech. if debate is online, i would emphasize clarity more than you usually would and go slightly slower. i don't need your analytics, nor will I ask for them; however, if your opponent asks for them to make debate accessible and you refuse to send them, i would think again.

if you are going to go for an argument about their author(s) being problematic or ev ethics, you should have notified the other team of that issue prior to the round. if you don't, i will still make a decision about the author or stop the round and decide whether ev ethics was violated but will ultimately be unhappy. you should try to prioritize having substantive debates rather than giving a speech no one wants to listen to and making me give an rfd that i don't want to give. debate should be educational and no one gets anything out of the round if it is stopped in the block because you wanted an easy win.

for this topic in particular, you should likely over explain the aff, disad, counterplan, etc. early in the debate because i am not researching the intricacies of ipr and have little background knowledge.

if you fail to read a complete disad, or argument in general, your opponent should not be expected to answer it as one. i don't have super unique thoughts about disads. specific evidence comparison for internal link chains and impact evidence will go a long way and make my life easier.

i won’t judge kick unless it’s in the 2nc and 2nr. that being said, i don’t really like to judge kick anyway and think you should just pick a winning 2nr. if you are reading a very technical process counterplan you should explain what it does and how it competes because i will not vote for an argument that i cannot explain.

you should do vastly more judge instruction if going for topicality and do more robust standards debating than you think is necessary. flag your offense and defense as well as your opponents and how yours interacts with theirs.reasonability, i believe, is confusing to adjudicate. i do not understand what it means for an interpretation to be “reasonable” and it seems arbitrary. i need a bright line established for why your interpretation is reasonable and what it means to be reasonable to vote for it.

i went for colonialism a lot my senior year and i think that the best strategy for k teams is one that moots the aff. a fiated alternative with links to the plan loses to the perm too much for it to be preferable. my background in critical literature is almost exclusive to cap, colonialism, and security so if you are reading psycho, pomo, or most other kritiks, you should overexplain the lit because i don't have the knowledge to easily make connections or understand the critique. something i have noticed while reading critical arguments is that aff teams should try to justify their scholarship more. you can win that cap is good, heg is good, extinction is bad, or that consequences determine ethics and free up some time from the framework debating.

organized debate is best, and generally, i feel the longer the k overview is, the further the debate strays from being organized. please answer arguments on the line by line and do not assume the prewritten overview that you read in every debate will answer all of their arguments about your theory of power, etc. answer arguments where your opponent has made them and i’m fine. you should also spend more time on the link debate in front of me, i think that link specificity is very important. reading a single card about ipr broadly being bad for x reason or the usfg being bad for x reason means so much less to me than a detailed analysis about why the rhetoric they are using or the specific form of ipr they are increasing is uniquely bad.

planless affirmatives are good so long as the affirmative departs from the status quo and you win the framework debate. for method debates, i think teams need to be clearer about how the methods interact with one another. what i mean is, how should i adjudicate a method about changing debate v a method about changing global systems of oppression? you should be doing enough work to get there, and if you don’t it will be significantly harder for me to vote neg. best method v k aff is probably cap but i'm down to hear whatever. neg on presumption is definitely plausible.

if you have questions, email me or ask pre-round.

Kayla Benson Wichita Southeast 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 11:07 AM CDT

Kayla Benson

Head Coach @ Wichita Southeast High School (Go Buffs!)

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com (Post-Tournament Questions: kbenson@usd259.net – I check this more often during the week…)

Paradigm Last Updated: September 2024 (Pre-Washburn Rural)

General Information:

My philosophy towards debate is that it should be a fun, engaging activity that challenges both you and your competitors in an academic environment. As debaters, your role is to develop and present well-thought-out, strategic arguments that foster healthy and respectful debates between both teams. My role as the judge is to evaluate the arguments you present and determine which team has the better arguments. One important thing I've learned through coaching is that I'd much rather watch a debate where participants are genuinely engaged with the arguments they enjoy than see debaters adjust their strategy based on what they think I want. For me, the ideal debate is fun, educational, and thought-provoking. I have only three expectations for every round: 1. Be respectful 2. Defend strong, well-supported evidence 3. Provide direct clash between opposing arguments. If you can meet these criteria, then I am your judge.

Also, if you are curious… I wrote out my thoughts/views/attitudes to various aspects of debate in relation to Taylor Swift songs… here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qiwakMBwhjlniGxY0xe6Y88pko5mXs-KuH-BHhXakXE/edit?usp=sharing

Thoughts on Various Aspects of Debate:

Decision-Making Criteria

Argumentative Styles – I come from a traditional policy-maker background, often relying on the classic T, CP, and DA structure. However, I’ve coached and judged almost every style, from stock issues to high-flow kritikal debates. The most important aspect of any debate, in my view, is providing clear judge instruction and framing your arguments effectively in the 2NR and 2AR. My ideal RFD should reflect the language and key lines from your team's final rebuttal. Additionally, one common issue I see is debaters failing to explain why the arguments they're extending matter within the broader context of the round. Remember, it’s crucial to make the importance of your arguments in the round clear.
Tech vs. Truth – I find myself at a bit of a crossroads. In the competitive context, I generally prioritize Tech over Truth. Dropped arguments are like dropped eggs... or whatever I learned my Novice Year. However, given the rise of misinformation in the real world, I believe there are instances where Truth should take precedence—especially when debaters are presenting blatantly false information that could have broader implications outside the round. That said, 99% of the time, I do default to Tech over Truth in the round.

Operational Aspects

Spreading – Can you spread? Yes, if you do it properly. There are three components I feel debaters are currently lacking: 1.Clarity – You still need to have clear diction in your words. 2. Volume – Find a balance of being loud enough for me to hear you, but I don’t want to feel like I’m being screamed at. 3. Varying Speed – When spreading, you should have an Analytic Speed (slowest), Tag Speed (middle), Body of Evidence Speed (fastest). Also, if this is my first time listening to you spread (or if I haven’t judged you in a while), start slow and then build, so I can adapt to your speed.
CX – I am okay with Open CX if both teams agree to it. However, a debate team has two people, so BOTH debaters need to be asking/answering questions. If I feel like you aren’t answering questions OR if I feel like you won’t let your partner answer questions, I will dock speaker points.
Prep Time – Prep time starts as soon as the timer goes off after CX or the speech ends (I usually accept a 10-15 second grace period to set a timer, but no one should be prepping during this time). Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. Prep time does not include deleting analytics or moving evidence. I won’t count sending the doc as part of prep time unless I feel like you are stealing prep or if it is taking an abnormally long time. While teams are sending the speech doc, everyone else should have their hands off their computers. If I have to tell you to stop stealing prep, I will dock points.
Sign-Posting – Please indicate when you are switching cards or moving from a card to analytics. There are two things that should indicate to me that you’ve moved on: 1. Having a vocal indication (And, Next, 1, A, etc.) 2. A change in vocal speed (see Spreading).
Extending Arguments – Notice, I said extending arguments, not extending authors. If you say the phrase “Extend Benson 24” with no explanation as to what that evidence says and how it applies to the round, I will not flow that extension. I will also probably dock some speaker points because that feels like lazy debating to me.

Specific Arguments

Case Debate – When debating the case, I appreciate when the negative presents a combination of both offensive and defensive arguments. I feel like on-case arguments are often underutilized in debates and can be used effectively in conjunction with your off-case arguments.
Topicality vs. Policy Affs – Need all parts (Interpretation, Violation, Standards, and Voters). Needs to be all five minutes of the 2NR. I prefer if the negative team provides a list of topical affirmatives that solve the advantages. - IPR Specific: I am not a huge fan of Subset T... I have yet to be provided with an instance of Ground Loss or a Case List that is more than 3 Affs.
Topicality vs. K Affs – Fairness is an internal link. A strong TVA has evidence – read a TVA.
Disadvantages – This is probably my bread and butter. When you are defending a disadvantage, I like when there is a clear explanation of how the DA outweighs and turns the case, and case-specific links (having multiple links is also a good thing for me). When you are arguing against a disadvantage, I like when you explain how the aff outweighs and turns the DA, and provide clear/specific link turns. Both teams need to engage in impact comparisons.
Counterplans – I’m going to be honest, I am not a fan of counterplans that have 20 billion planks and should really be three different counterplans but are mashed into one. Also, not a fan of when teams read multiple planks with the strategy of extending the plank/solvency that the affirmative inevitably drops (this is the 2A side of me). To win a CP, you need to explain 1. How the CP solves the aff and 2. The net benefit of the CP – these two aspects need to create a clear story as to how the counterplan functions.
Ks on the Negative – Have an alt, explain how it solves. Have a clear link – I am not a fan of links of omission (but can be convinced). Have some framework – how do you want me to evaluate the context of the round? Explain/defend your literature in a way that makes sense to how you want me to evaluate the debate. Also, if you want me to judge-kick the alt, you need to explain the rationale and conditions under which you want me to kick the alt.
K Affs – You need two things: 1. An advocacy statement (or something similar) 2. A relation to the topic (part of the K aff needs to be about IPR...).
Theory – On theory arguments, I am most persuaded when you can provide a clear example of proven in-round abuse. Also, if you are going to spread through your theory blocks with no clear signpost or speed change AND delete it from the speech doc, don’t be surprised if I don’t evaluate it. Condo: You can read it… I generally think that some conditional advocacies are okay (like three? Each plank on a multi-plank counterplan counts as a conditional advocacy in my eyes). If you want me to vote on it, it must be all five minutes of the 2AR.

4. Speaker Points:

Everyone starts at a 28.5.

Increase by: Speaking clearly, having strong/complete arguments, engaging in clash, being creative, extending warrants/arguments, talking about Taylor Swift.
Decrease by: Not speaking clearly, not completing arguments, ignoring judge instruction, being rude/aggressive, extending authors, stealing prep, making digs at Taylor Swift.

Brian Box Blue Valley North 3 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.

Connor Brown Lawrence Free State High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 9:43 AM CDT

I debated for four years at Lawrence Free State High School ('24)

I debate at the University of Kansas ('28)

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

Top Level

I know very little about this topic and IPR in general---acronyms, etc should be explained.

Agree with pretty much everyone that tech>truth, in depth debate is better than shallow, and people need to do more impact calc.

I really think you need to slow down and be extra clear on certain parts of the debate---it's actually impossible to flow things like FW, theory, perms, or really blocks of any kind when you are going at the same pace/clarity of the body of a 1AC card.

I won't clear you, but if I'm not typing/writing when you want me to be flowing you need to slow down a little and be more clear.

You should read re-highlightings, don't just insert them.

Decision-making

I like to make simple decisions---I'll flow the debate and pay attention to technical concessions, but teams that win and explain a controlling argument that filters out the other team's offense will win more often in front of me than teams that shotgun a billion arguments and don't impact them out. This means I think that final rebuttal overviews should not just reread 1AR/2NC overviews, they should explain what arguments they are winning, why that matters, and why it doesn't matter if the other team wins some arguments.

I'll start my decision and RFD with framework---it's very important for me.

Judge instruction is super important---who turns what, which standard outweighs the other, etc. I won't create a "middle ground" framework if I think it's a tie.

If I can't explain to the other team what the link/impact was in the RFD, I will have a hard time voting for you.

Similar to the above point, your 2NC/2NR link explanation should be tailored to the specific affirmative---use lines from their ev, moments in CX, don't just reread the same "USfg/IPR bad" block over and over.

K Aff

Judge instruction is even more important for this.

Neg teams should answer case in 2NR.

Theory

I think theory is underutilized, but Aff teams should create better interps than just something like "PICs bad".

I'm unlikely to reject a team based on a theoretical objection to a CP/Alt.

I'm unlikely to view new 2NC counterplans as legitimate.

Azja Butler Shawnee Mission South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:58 PM CDT

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

@ the Nano Nagle (HS LD / PF)

"Did you read x card..." or "Which cards did you skip" are QUESTIONS so the CX timer should be started, this mess is flighted so please don't waste my or the tournament's time.

Arguments have three parts: 1] Claim 2] Data/Evidence 3]Warrant -- if these are not present your chance of winning in front of me are low.

I primarily judge high school and college policy -- at the point in which you integrate policy arguments, norms, and techne is the point in which I evaluate the debate as a 1v1 policy debate. I will take no notes.

I promise I have no problem clearing you or your opponent so please don't clear one another -- if it's actually unclear I will more than likely beat you to it.

I don't like having to read evidence in place of you all actually debating/making arguments. That being said if your evidence is just a series of one-liners / a sentence long, only partially highlighted I prob won't take your stuff seriously.

Don't read Kant in front of me and expect me to see the debate the way you do -- if you don't know that means: Don't read it.

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + Planless Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Brett Cranor Blue Valley Southwest High School 4 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.

Brody Cunningham Blue Valley 3 rounds

Evander Davis Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 12, 2024 at 12:02 PM CDT

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Assistant for Washburn Rural

Competed @ Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed though in my experience debaters often benefit from slowing down and speaking more efficiently. Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

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

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

Case

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

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

DAs

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

CPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other

Things that are good:

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

Things that are bad:

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

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

Petre Dimitriu Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 5:50 AM CDT

For email chains: snallular2002@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '20

University of Kansas '24

Top Level:

- I flow on paper so please slow down on theory/analytics.

- The less laptop usage in rebuttals, the better.

- Impact calc, evidence comparison, and ballot framing are very important. Doing this in rebuttals better than the other team is a good way to win.

- More explanation is always helpful, whether in policy or clash debates. Assume I am not familiar with your arguments.

- Have fun in round! I appreciate debates a lot more when everyone seems engaged.

- If you are being rude/offensive during a debate round I will point it out and vote against you if it continues.

Case:

- In depth debate about/explanation of internal links on case is the best way to access impacts on the aff and win case defense/turns on the neg.

- For the aff, I strongly prefer a few well explained internal links and good cards over an advantage with tons of bad internal links/scenarios meant to overwhelm the neg.

Topicality:

- Usually a question of competing interpretations; the affirmative saying "we are reasonably topical" alone isn't an argument. There have to be actual warrants.

- Make sure to extend terminal impacts to your interpretations if T is the 2NR/2AR.

- Case lists are helpful for evaluating models of debate insofar as they are predictable.

Disads:

- Specific links!

- For both teams, I'm a sucker for recent uniqueness evidence with actual warrants.

- Impact calc on DAs is very important for both teams (see top level).

Counterplans:

- I err towards condo being good. If you go for condo bad, I prefer arguments that are specific to the negative team's strategy.

- I err aff on most other CP theory but having specific solvency advocates can help persuade me otherwise.

- In-depth discussion about how the mechanisms of the counterplan interact with the other arguments in the debate (linking to DAs, solving the impacts of advantages, etc.) is one of my favorite things to see in debate rounds, and a good way to win the debate for both teams.

Kritiks:

- Assume I am not familiar with your lit base. I'm not well versed in many critical literature bases, and even if I am somewhat familiar with yours, more explanation always helps.

- I am most persuaded by arguments contextualized to the world of the affirmative, whether you are going for an alt or a link/framework.

- Negative teams need to contest the affirmative in ways other than on framework or the impact to the K; a 2NR that spends time discussing how the aff is incapable of solving its impacts alongside critical offense is the most compelling to me.

Framework:

- I like debates about fairness. Usually when neg teams bring up other impacts (truth testing, topic education) they end up being indistinguishable from fairness anyway, so if you want to go for them make them distinct.

- I like negative strategies against non-resolutional affirmatives that engage with the case, either via evidence or good C/X questions.

- Non-resolutional affs that have some clear connections to topic literature and have a role for the negative in their model are most compelling to me.

Rob Egan Newton 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 3, 2024 at 9:48 AM CDT

Update July 1, 2024.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I am the current debate, forensics and speech instructor at Newton High School. I formerly coached and taught debate, forensics and speech at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.

In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.

Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.

Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!

POLICY (CX) DEBATE

I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.

Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.

Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!

PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE

Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE

If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP

Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS

I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!

Lexi Ellis Hire 5 rounds

Timothy Ellis Hire

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.

Olivia Fonseca Shawnee Mission West High School 2 rounds

Alexa Glendinning Crossings Christian School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 9, 2024 at 6:27 AM CDT

I am the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated from the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater. If you are a very K Heavy team, I might not be the best judge for you.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

Annie Goodson Blue Valley West 5 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!

Brooklynn Hato Shawnee Mission South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2024 at 9:31 AM EDT

Brooklynnjhato@gmail.com

University of Kansas’27

she/her

Top–

I have debated critically for most of my debate career. Though, growing up in Kansas policy and stock issues debates are not foreign to me. I encourage you to debate the way you’ve invested. Warranted analysis, ample judge instruction, and framing arguments in rebuttals are necessities. I flow straight down, I think disclosure is good.

Do not take cross ex as prep, do not brush past cross ex…it’s literally a speech
No need to prompt your partner, just say the argument i’ll flow it
I flow on my computer, but I’m not typing at 3000x speed
I read evidence during the debate. Clipping = L

Policy v K–

I assume aff get’s to weigh the plan at the start of debate. Fw is important. Quality line by line in the 2ac is important. “Our threats are real/extinction outweighs” to set up that link turn + alt does nothing slam dunk #period! If the negative has not isolated a mechanism to resolve links/impacts, I am very liberal to a “you went for a non UQ da…here’s the permutation” 2ar.

For the negative–

Link specificity is good, whether that is links to the plan, performance, or representations is up to you. I prefer “alt solves the links” over “our fw interp solves our fw offense” but do you. I am most familiar with black feminism, anti-blackness, capitalism critiques, and arguments surrounding affect. Buzz words are bad over explaining is good. I understand being the 2n that has a lot of floating offense, judge instruction for how this frames out aff engagement/impacts is necessary. I’ve always been a 2A so I love a good case throw down, best K 2n’s save 1-2 min of the 2nr to obliterate the case.

Planeless Affs:

I believe affs should be in the direction of the resolution or have a topic link. I should have a clear articulation of what the aff does, who/what it's good for, and why the ballot is necessary. Your performance should not be abandoned in the middle of the debate/you didn't make it important. Going for the impact turn is good, going for the counter interp plus "we have defense to your model, you don't" is great!

FW:

There is a difference between the 1ac having a critique of the topic vs the resolution–critique of the resolution is neg ground and should be exploited in these debates.

The TVA is gas and the aff answers are probably trash. The SSD/Stasis good 2nr's good. I don't evaluate fairness as "you broke the rules catch an L" but "if competition/fairness is true, only a universal stasis point is able to determine contestable debates that are predictable [clash args]" No case debating in the 2NR is probably going to be an L.

LD:

Tricks: please don't

Phil: Probably don't but I can manage, heavy on the explanation, i’m always unclear where y'all are generating offensive from. Clear judge instruction is your friend

No I don’t disclose speaks.

The aff goes before the off.

Jam Hoffmann Shawnee Mission South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 7:48 AM CDT

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

after over a year of the most public display of genocide in history i am no longer going to pretend that defending “the u.s. led liberal international order” is not morally equivalent to defending the holocaust

climate topic update - i have done no research for it

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful and can even be outright genocidal, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, arms sales to israel are good, increasing police funding is good, etc.

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every time). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

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.

Brenden Kearney Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 4:45 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Harun Khan Hire 3 rounds

Easton Logback Olathe East High School 6 rounds

Isaac Martinez Blue Valley West 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 12:44 PM CDT

¡Hola!

Please add me to the email chain.

isaackudebate@gmail.com

I DO NOT USE FILE SHARE

General Info:

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley West (KS)

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Spearman High School TX 2022 - (Congress)

University of Kansas 2026 - (Policy) Currently Debating

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge > Isaac

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 9/29/2024**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I don't really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Evidence:

I'm cool cards and I also like blocks. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

Assume that I know nothing about your literature base. Even though I read K's in college, it's good practice to win why your theory of power matters more than the plan. This should be how your ideal 2NR is structured to get my ballot on a K:

Re-Establish your theory of power

Extend the link with the most amount of offense than defense

answer any alt defense

and then sit on why the alt solves.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

Will vote either way. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Clash :

Love it

Fairness:

Not opposed to it

Theory:

Kinda tricky for me. I think I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many planks you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction

Be nice to each other.

Here are some people I somewhat align with Dr. Brett Bricker, Dr. Scott Harris, Luna Schultz, and Will Soper.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

Alex McCarthy Shawnee Mission West High School 4 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 :).

Sean McConnell Hayden HS 3 rounds

Ryan McFarland Blue Valley Southwest High School 2 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.

Sean Pennington Manhattan High School 2 rounds

AJ Persinger Lawrence Free State High School 2 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!

Mac Phrommany Blue Valley

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 7:27 AM EDT

Yes, I do want to be on the e-mail chain: mphrommany@bluevalleyk12.org

I was a debater for Spring Hill High School. Coach for Manhattan High School 2017-2024. I now Coach for Blue Valley High School in Stillwell, KS.

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric (or most procedurals for that matter) if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but they have to be competitive. I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Random stuff for this year: 2024-2025

--- I need to see some fantastic evidence comparison this year. The literature feels very divided on what conditions best generate things like innovation.,

--- I have a hard time believing IPR will sway the election

---I think the K ground this year is fantastic

--- I will listen to a generic Strengthening Enforcement T debate. I'm not quite sure of how I feel about this argument yet.

Shawn Rafferty Mill Valley 1 rounds None

Taylor Rafferty Mill Valley 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 12:54 PM CDT

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision. Yes, to judge instruction.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Vijay Ramasamy Hire 2 rounds

Alejandro Rangel-López Dodge City High School 6 rounds

Austin Rea Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paris Rivas Dodge City High School 2 rounds

Emma Schroeder Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:33 AM CDT

Emma Schroeder

Washburn Rural High School ’20

KU ’24 (not debating)

Put me on the email chain - ekathschroeder@gmail.com

TLDR - I am most comfortable in a policy-orientated debate. If you want to go for anything different, be ready to over-explain. Be nice, be smart, be clear and we should have a good time

----------

Top Level

Don't expect me to have a lot of insight on very technical, topic-specific arguments if you don't provide context and explanation for me. I haven't researched a debate topic since high school. If I look confused you need to warrant things out more. Please don't make me google

Please. Do. Judge Instruction. If your rebuttal doesn't make some sort of claim like "if we win x argument we win the debate" then you have not done your rebuttal correctly

Tech v truth - Evidence quality and credibility is very important, and I will reward you for good research and for being ahead on the flow. But! Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Your “card” doesn’t count as tech if it’s unintelligibly highlighted. I think people need to stop assuming that terrible arguments necessitate a response. I have a lot of respect for 2ACs that *correctly* identify a nonsense arg, make a handful of smart analytics, and move on

Speed - Stop screaming into your laptops. Dear god. I flow on paper. I promise you I can flow, but if you don't explain your argument out long enough for me to physically move my pen then it probably isn't a real argument anyway. Topicality, framework, and other theory blocks need to be slowed down. I often have very physical signs of agreement or confusion with arguments. If you cannot slow down enough to look for these signs while speaking then why are you in a communication activity? My flow is the only one that matters when I write the ballot. Stop sacrificing line by line for reading blocks. It's bad debate practice and hella boring to judge

Bigotry in any way will not be tolerated. If it becomes an issue in round, it will result in a loss

----------

Things I like - 8 min of case in the 2NC, no laptops in the 2NR/2AR, impact calc, ballot framing, baller cross-ex strategies, unabashedly slow yet efficient debaters, persuasion, rehighlighted evidence, debaters who are funny/having a good time

Things I don’t like - general rudeness, 10 off in the 1NC (why do u need to do dis), stealing prep, clipping, death good, bad highlighting (see above rant), saying “X was conceded!!!” when it really wasn’t

----------

Case - **heart eyes emoji** The more case debate you do, the happier I become. Two good case cards > your extra shitty DA. I have never had the opportunity to vote on presumption but would absolutely love to. If you give me this opportunity I will gladly reward you, either with the ballot or with good speaks.

Counterplans - Will vote for conditions/consult/process/PICs but probably won’t be thrilled about it. Conditionality is probably good, but I get annoyed judging 9 off debates that suck when it could have been a 5 off debate that was good. I usually see judge kick as an extension of condo unless otherwise contested. I would like a solvency advocate unless you’re getting incredibly creative. Will be responsive to theory if every solvency deficit is being fiated through. Delay = cheating.

Topicality - probably my favorite argument although it’s hard to do correctly. Debaters should think of T debates like they’re debating a DA. 1 standard = 1 DA. Pick one for the 2NR, otherwise there's too many moving parts and your impact won't be explained. It is rare to see a terminal impact explained to T, you should have one. It's try or die for *your impact* baby. Arguments should be framed in the context of what the current topic looks like and how it would change. In general: Precision > Limits > Ground > Topic Education. Also, if you put a 15 second ASPEC blip at the bottom of your T shell, there’s a 100% chance I will ignore it. Put it on a separate sheet.

Kritiks - If it tells you anything, when I was a senior I did not read a K in the 1NC a single time. But if you want to, go for it and be prepared to explain! There are so many moments when I judge K debates where I think to myself "I have 0 idea what this means" and its not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that your speech does not go beyond the use of buzzwords. Using a big word is not and will never be a sufficient warrant. The FW and links 2NRs are most successful because alts are always bad imo. Unless you are very good I will probably weigh the aff. Saying fiat is illusory doesn’t mean anything to me. Long overviews are a sign that you’re not putting in enough effort to engage with the line-by-line.

Framework - I am a bad person to read a planless aff in front of. But if you must, I believe affs need to have some form of topic link. Fairness is the most persuasive impact to me. I don’t think going to the actual case page in the 2NR is always necessary, but the arguments need to be contextualized to the 1AC. Neg teams are generally good at talking about their impacts but need to do more work on the internal link level.

Michael Shelton Lawrence Free State High School 2 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.

Tanner Smith Blue Valley West 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 16, 2024 at 6:19 PM CDT

Blue Valley West Assistant Debate Coach

Email chain: tanmansmith5@gmail.com

If you have any questions before or after the round you can email or just ask me!

Update for Waru:

I spent the whole summer in Canada so I don't have a lot of topic specific knowledge for early season rounds. So bear with me and maybe cut down on the topic specific jargon a tad.

Big Picture:

I've had quite a bit of experience with debate over the years so I'm cool with whatever you want to throw out. I have more experience with some arguments than others (see below) but am willing to vote on just about anything. The only thing I will not vote on is things that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Other than that do whatever you want. When I debated I tended to be more tech>truth but I can be convinced otherwise if you warrant it out. Be kind to everyone and you will be just fine.

Also please drop arguments as the round goes on. The 2NR should pick one (or maybe 2 at most) arguments to go for. What those arguments are are completely up to you.

Delivery:

Speed is great and I loved going fast when I debated. If you could slow down on tags, theory, analytics, and a bit for rebuttals I would appreciate it. I would also love the speech doc if you are going to go fast.

Framing:

I will vote how you tell me to. Prove why your framing is better for debate and warrant out why your model is better. I'm a big believer in being told why voting a specific way is good for not just debate but for how we look at the world outside of debate. Prove why your way of thinking is better and I'll probably vote for you.

DAs:

I prefer specific links but I also get that sometimes you just need a bad politics DA. This is where I've got the most experience so read as many as you want. If I am going to vote on a DA though make sure it either outweighs or turns the case.

CPs:

These are great so read them. I love Advantage CPs in conjunction with a DA but read whatever you want. Condo is always up for debate but I tend to think that condo is good unless proven otherwise. Process CPs are fine unless you convince me otherwise. Consult and CPs like that are probably cheating unless you have some really good theory.

I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced of reasonability. Maybe slow down a bit for T in the rebuttals but I am receptive to T if you want to run it.

K/K Affs:

I have run Cap K and am familiar with the more generic Ks (Cap, Security, Militarism, Imperialism, etc.). I will vote on any K but assume if it is not one of the above mentioned you need to do some more explaining. I will also vote for K affs although I also don't have a lot of experience in that regard.

Random Notes:

For some reason I have spent a lot of my debate career running SPARK so I am probably about as receptive to SPARK as any judge you will ever find.

Debate is an activity that should be fun so if you have an argument that will make the round fun/more entertaining I would be excited to hear it.

Final Note — If you tell me a joke before the round I'll give you a small boost in your speaker points. Like I said, debate should be fun and I like rewarding people for reading my paradigm!

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.

Henry Walawender Shawnee Mission East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 9:57 AM CDT

Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com, smedocs@googlegroups.com

Current KU debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.

Assistant debate coach, Shawnee Mission East.

General.

Debater wins rounds not cards. I am not a fan of argument styles which endlessly spam cards and request I evaluate the argument rather than making evidence comparison. I make decisions off my flow and only in circumstances when absolutely necessary I will look at evidence. This means that if the argument you have made is different from your card I will only evaluate the argument you have made. Debates where I don't have to look at evidence will have high speaks.

Judge instruction is vital. I attempt to minimize intervention as much as possible. I will not cross apply arguments to different parts of the flow without explicit instruction even if you think it might be intuitive. Framing is very very very important to me and makes giving the decision you want wayyyyy easier to me.

Rebuttals should not just be technical but also persuasive. Anyone that says ethos doesn't matter and that they only care about the words said in the speech is wrong.

Debaters should have fun. I like this activity and you probably do to.

Good for clash debates, better for policy throwdowns.

Don't be afraid to over explain the legal jargon on this topic. I have basically no topic knowledge.

I flow CX to understand positions more clearly and occasionally as a took to check for lying.

Tech >>> Truth.

Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:

1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.

2. Please, please, please slow down on T, perms, framework, and theory. Making sure I can understand the nuance of these arguments that require a lot of depth is super important.

3. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.

Clarity >>> speed. You do not need to be the fastest to be the best debater.

I am very comfortable clearing you. If I have to clear you multiple times I will stop flowing.

I won't judge kick unless told to. Prefer this starts in the block not the 2nr. Kind of err aff on this question. Judge intervention is bad.

Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.

Slightly longer sentences >>> buzz words.

Disclosure is good and I will vote for arguments that argue such. If you believe your opponent losing 30 min of preround prep will determine the direction of the debate for you that feels like a you problem.

I value author quals pretty high.

If you take away one thing from this do not be afraid to slow down for very important parts of the debate. The more nuance I get on my flow makes it easier to break ties if they are not resolved in the rebuttals.

Clash Debates.

Is it un or non topical? Who knows.

I enjoy thinking about these debates and I think they are epistemologically viable. Judging them is different...

I vote negative when the negative has disproven the viability of the affs model for a sustainable, season long stasis of debate-ability AND justified, at least at some level, their interpretation of what debate should look like.

I vote affirmative when they have justified their model of debate. To me, this is best done when there is an impact turn to a neg standard/a DA to their model, AND a counter interp that resolves, or at least attempts to resolve both teams offense. It is not impossible to win without a counter interp, frankly it might even be more easy given how limits and ground are often uncontextualized to the counter interp, but I think I would rather vote on a CP and a DA than a DA and Case if that analogy makes sense.

It is important to note that these are different. Neg teams which narrowly focus on the fact that the aff is untopical and thus over invest in the impact level of the debate will lose these debates in front of me. I am generally of the opinion that clash, fairness, limits, and ground are all good, but how we get access to these arguments are where these debates often fall apart. Because of such I believe that most of this debate should take place on the counter interp level.

Policy Affs.

Having 2-4 impacts with justifiable internal links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having 20 impacts in the 1AC

Durable fiat only goes so far. Affs should use their plan text to get out of neg tricks when it comes to getting out of durable fiat.

Be prepared to justify your assumptions. If you lose to the K a lot it’s likely because you are not justifying why the theory of the aff is good. This is especially true for IR/security debates.

Kritical Affs.

I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Voted for K affs: 3, Against: 0

Presumption.I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff in the round is good or negation of the aff is good.

I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.

I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.

Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.

DAs.

DAs that are 3 cards long with 2 sentences highlighted are cringe. Pls read warrants. Just bc your author says something doesn’t mean it is automatically true. Including the justification in the ev is vital.

Timeframe is underutilized. Most teams use it well in the Econ DA v climate adv but forget about it when it comes to other affs. Only one extinction can happen!

X neg impact inevitable under Y Aff impact is persuasive but without some form of defense will not win you the debate.

CPs.

You need to slow down on competition. I cannot flow 7 standards for functional competition good that are all half a sentence long.

CPs should compete, you tell me what frame to use. That saying, I'm not a fan of textual competition hate.

Basically every judge ever would rather vote on a solvency deficit than competition. I am one of those judges. This doesn't mean I would never go for competition in front of me but If you are confident in a deficit that has an quantifiable/qualifiable impact go for it.

CPs should be legitimate and compete.

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Artificial competition is bad.

Competition tricks are often not persuasive.

K v Policy.

Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.

Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.

Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.

I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.

Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.

K v K.

Most people do not like these debates and I understand why but a good K v K debate is one of my favorites.

Reading the generic Escalante party alt plus links from a camp file that don’t really apply makes cap debaters look bad.

Affs should get perms. Are they abusive sometimes? Yes. Are no perms worse? Yes.

The most important parts of these debates is establishing competition. If you’re gonna read a K in the 1NC then be ready to defend the alt’s explanation of why X happens.

Competing interps > reasonability. Reasonability is underrated.

I will absolutely vote for "bad," horribly over limiting, or groundless interps as long as they are winning on tech.

Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can change my preference.

Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.

2ACs need to be responsive, do not drop 1NC impacts or internal links.

Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).

Theory.

Interp wording is vital. I dislike neg strats that default to just calling the aff interp arbitrary. I think all theory is arbitrary its more a question of competing interps.

nonresolutional theory args are 2n copium at best

Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.

I don't think judge kick is a voter but a dropped 1ar argument can change that.

I think dropping theory sucks because most time its bad and doesn't link. Auto voting down teams bc of this where I find myself questioning tech over truth but I will try my best to maintain my a fair environment. Tbh I would rather just reject the arg ie someone drops floating piks bad and I just reject the alt.

Procedurals also follow most of this but I think this is definitely where I can be convinced more on reasonability. Aff teams that say something problematic should not go all in on "their interp is arbitrary," after saying a slur. I'm sure this might make some ultra-tech people upset but being problematic in round outweighs and probably ruins the education value of debate

If you got this far please don't make fun of my lack of grammar i no no wanna :)

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.

Ava Williamson Manhattan High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:23 AM CDT

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

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS).

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

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

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in debate

Top 10 @state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in info and extemp

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 8.5/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. For the rest of the paradigm, like all judges, I have some biases with arguments and deficiencies in some areas, this paradigm will hopefully be able to answer a majority of your questions, but if I am unclear or you want more clarification on something, please ask me!

T/Theory-

You're going to want to slow down here, especially if you are going down the line by line.

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.

I've debated at small schools all my career, so I love those impacts especially and I am a huge fan of brightlines. Other than those, I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.

I don't know what the popular T arguments are or what T debates look like on this topic, so if it's a really weird interp or something like that, probably explain it a bit more than you would for me.

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I don't have much experience with this debate personally, but I can still evaluate it well, I just don't read it personally.

Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best.

For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

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

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

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

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

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I personally didn't run many K's but I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are queer/trans theory, capitalism, biopolitics, academy/university, and militarism/security. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

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

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

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

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

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.

I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

General Notes-

I will be flowing, and it is where most of my decisions will be based. So, line by line will be greatly appreciated!! It makes it easier for not only me but everyone in the debate understands what you are responding to.

I strongly believe in extensions. So, extend you affs, off cases, and any card you want to carry though the round. The extensions don't have to be elaborate just a quick author and date will do for me (you can even group them together). If the card is not brought up in your teams next speech, I will assume it has been dropped. You read the cards for reason, please use them throughout the debate and not just during one speech.

In the 2NR/2AR everything should be getting wrapped up and telling me why I should vote for you. Any loose ends I see as an incomplete job on either side. And may affect my decision. Note: if I have to do the work for you in the end of any debate is not good.

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

Zach Willingham Hire 3 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 2 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.

Marcus Woodcock Shawnee Mission South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:05 AM EDT

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

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality -

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

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

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

Critical Affs –

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

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

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

Disads -

Not much to say here...

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

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

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

Counterplans –

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

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

Kritiks –

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

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

Case -

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

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

Blaine Yarborough Crossings Christian School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 5:29 AM CDT

Experience:

8th year and counting of doing debate and my 2nd year of assistant coaching at Crossings Christian School - I've debated for Crossings Christian School, University of Oklahoma, and Southern Nazarene University

Email (please include me):

bycxdebate@gmail.com

General notes about me and my ideas:

do what you do best - don't overcorrect via judge adaptation

traditional policy stuff is good - generics exist for a reason - specificity is better but making topic generics work in unique and interesting ways excites me - the way to win these debates is contextualization - if the link is just to the generic topic mechanism without mentioning the aff once that will not be conducive to victory

theory is something people should go for more and not be afraid to go for - i am 50/50 on just about every theoretical question so go for it - i have a lot more thoughts about these things but i'm too lazy to type them so feel free to ask

kritiks that both make sense and become well applied to the aff are going to do a lot for you - kritiks that are generic, generally unspecific, and noncontextualized make it a lot harder to win a 2nr on the k - don't be afraid to defend things with the k either - people oftentimes get too floaty and seek out less clash which i can respect but am not as pleased with - some k's are just bad though just like some cps and das are bad

counterplans are incredibly interesting to me and i appreciate them more than most - competition is for y'all to debate about, the cp should probably make some level of sense, and shouldn't be super contrived (well maybe it should be contrived idk and idc) but regardless you shouldn't be afraid to read them - read however many planks for your adv cp or the weird process cp that probably loses to perm do the counterplan or a recut solvency advocate from the 1ac as a cp (all of those can be defended and should be) -

topicality is good and people should go for it - t should be a strategy that can be deployed in every 1nc (even if that thing is a core of the topic aff that every camp cut) - hot take but t subsets is funny and a viable strategy and so are other doofy procedurals such as aspec

k affs are gonna do whatever they want a lot of the time so read fw (or whatever you wanna call t) and impact turn their lit - go for liberalism good or managerialism good or russia is worse or t - i really don't care its up to you but everything i outlined above sounds like a pretty good strategy just make sure you touch case so the 2ar can't leverage everything against you

case neg is the best thing for you to read and do in a round - a neg strategy solely consisting of case neg would make my weekend 100 times better - tell me the aff is bad and i'll be happy

Oklahoma LD/PF (everything above is for CX):

again do what you do best but just because I'm a policy bro doesn't mean you auto-win if you say something progressive in front of me - if you're better at doing the typical and traditional stuff then do it and win it - obviously, try new things out but just don't expect it to be an auto win

people also seem to have forgotten about offense/defense and impact calculus - p.t.m. is a good thing people and so is doing turns analysis

similar to what I said above but people have seemingly forgotten what solvency is too - make smart solvency arguments and win that that implicates solvency - if someone defends substantial is 25% and reads a US imperialism aff then a smart neg that says "lol that means 75% of the US is still there how does that hurt imperialism" would be reading my mind

Dakota Yates Buhler High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:13 AM CDT

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.

Login to Tabroom

Washburn Rural Debate Invitational

2024 — Topeka, KS/US

Varsity Judges Paradigm List

Judges