Hey Y'all, My name is Hunter Boelow, I currently compete in NPDA for Arkansas State University, and competed for Mount Hood Community College before A-State.

You can read whatever you want in front of me, I do my best to avoid doing any work on my end to render decisions, so make sure that you aren't expecting me to clarify fuzzy questions at the end of the round. Aside from the exceptions below, I attempt to be an entirely Tab judge, if I don't have a clear direction given to me, or none at all, I will default to the flow.

I'm a tech over truth judge, and my job is to write down the arguments made, and hope that someone tells me what it means and why it matters. My bright line for theory gets harsher as debates go further (Parli Specific), so I'm much more willing to pull the trigger on theory out of LO than I am if its read in the MO, if its not responding to something new

I have no problem dropping your speaks if you're rude/harsh to other debaters, intensity or emotion for effect are different, but if you speak over or admonish your opponent in front of me, you'll be very sad when you see your speaks. I also won't hesitate to drop you if decide to use violent or bigoted rhetoric/argumentation in front of me. I would harshly suggest that you avoid reading advocacies for any politics that could be considered fascist, even if doing so in an ironic fashion.

My ears sometimes have a problem hearing,you have a quieter speaking or spreading voice, I might need to sit closer, or speak up if you could, I am also autistic so if you notice me making funny faces or quizzically staring at something, it's probably not you, unless it is.

If you have any questions before the round, ask away, I would prefer to answer questions at the start of the round, so I don't have to explain things at the end of the round.

GTA at KU Fall 2021

former NDT/CEDA debater for the University of Missouri - Kansas City

I'd like to be on the email chain.

I will do my best to adjust to your style and evaluate what is presented.

I enjoy judging debates.

I'm generally fine with speed, but please slow down for tags and authors. I flow on paper. If you spread full speed through a CP with 5 planks, I will be struggling to know what it does.

I think debate is usually about story telling, and I often find myself more comfortable voting for debaters who have provided a better and more complete story. This also means I am more hesitant to vote on arguments that just don't make sense to me - this seems obvious but I feel like it comes up more frequently than expected. I need to understand your argument well enough to explain to the other team why they lost a debate on it.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful things.

---------

Kritiks - I like a good kritik. I usually find myself more persuaded by kritiks that have an alternative in the 2NR with lots of examples and explanation for why it resolves the impact. I think policy affs often lack a robust defense of utilitarianism, and I enjoy listening to arguments about why we should use another method to make ethical decisions.

I would also encourage you to:

- contextualize your links to the affirmative

- explain why you control / solve / turn / moot the 1AC's impacts

- illustrate why the aff is factually incorrect, in a way that is consistent with your criticism -- usually think it's a little awkward when the K about epistemology contradicts your case defense from xyz think tank -- I would encourage you to read smart case arguments or be ready to defend "we're negative and get to do that"

I usually think K affs that 1) do something or advocate that something should be done 2) have some relation to the topic - are the most persuasive. If that's not your aff, just be sure to explain why you have good reasons not to.

Topicality / FW - Interpretations should be strategic and well justified. If you go for T, be sure to have clear impacts and weigh them. Reasonability vs competing interpretations is up for y'all to decide. In FW v K debates, I think specific and clear offense in the last speech usually ends up deciding my ballot. Affirmatives without a plan text should be sure to have significant offense - and explain why it outweighs clash or whatever.

Theory - Sure. Be in-depth, specific, and weigh the impacts of each interpretation. 3-4+ condo is probably a lot in front of me, especially if there is a clear in-round abuse story.

DAs - Works for me. Tell a good story and do lots of impact comparison.

CPs - Counterplans are cool and create interesting strategies. I probably lean slightly affirmative on most of the theory here, but could be convinced otherwise. That being said, strategic PICs are often very persuasive to me. If you read a big multi-plank CP, you should particularly emphasize what it does and how it works. Otherwise, we may not be on same page at the end of the debate when you assume that I understand why plank #7 solves the 3rd internal link of the second scenario on the first advantage.

Also, negatives should do more case debate. I am often convinced that plans wouldn't really do anything.

Speaker points:

DO:

- funny or particularly insightful remarks during the debate

- send speech docs quickly and effectively (for example, 1NR sent by the end of 2NC CX)

- signpost well during your speech

- make smart, strategic decisions during the debate

DON'T:

- steal prep

- be overly rude or mean

I debated 4 years at Hutchinson High School and debated for a little bit in college at KCKCC 14-15; Currently assistant coaching for the 5th year.

Background: I ran exclusively policy arguments during high school, in college then I switched the arguments about identity, non traditional ("performance" if you want to call it that), I.E- Latina knowledge production, queerness,and womanism. I am familiar with lots of different arguments from all sides of the spectrum so feel free to run what you will in front of me I will listen to anything- Do you.. Like I said I've done debate on the policy and critical sides of the spectrum.

Yes! I want to be on the email chain: hhsjuarez14@gmail.com

T: As far as topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate?? That seems like a pretty steep punishment. Give a reason and not just a generic basic reason prove to me that there's a real impact in the round

I expect you to make comparative impact claims, Don't just do a small extensions of cards and think that's good enough b/c more than likely it's not good enough to a/t the argument. I expect you to explain what your evidence (assuming you choose to read evidence/ if not explain why your argument is important to the debate.) and most importantly I want you to tell me what matters in the debate and what I should vote on or frame the debate on how the debate should be judged on.

Link work in general: if you have bad link stories- It will be hard for you to win the round, you will have to put in work on why your link matters and why it should be weighed in the debate but at the end of the day I like/ look for good link cards in the round.

CP: I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence are bad and while and if you want to win on it you'll have to do more than just read your blocks.

DA: In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important weigh it out and remember good link cards

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Things you should know/ if you care:

Speed: I'm okay with speed just be clear or I'll yell out clear.

I will vote you down on speaks if you are blatantly offensive/ Rude for no reason I don't want to see/ hear it.

I like hearing historical examples are great ways to contextualize your arguments and show off your intelligence, it will impress me and help me get on board with your argument. Let me see what you know!

Arguments I don't like/want to hear is racism good/ not real, rape good, etc. Just being honest. It will also largely implicate your speaker points.

If you have any questions just ask me!

I debated for 4 years at Andover Central High School.

Email: thezachattack09@gmail.com

For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.

In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.

Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.

TLDR

Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.

Theory

Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.

Case

Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.

T

Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.

Ks vs Policy Affs

Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.

Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.

T vs Non-traditional Affs

"The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom" -a fortune cookie

I tend to believe that fairness is not a terminal impact. I have a hard time quantifying it in relation to affirmative turns and disads to framework. You would need some concrete, aggregate data that showed people quitting or however you explain why it matters and exclude any variables that don't deal with critical affirmatives. Clash and iterative education are much easier to win in front of me.

If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.

I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.

While my track record in HS is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.

Method vs Method

The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.

Here are some miscellaneous tips:

I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.

I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.

Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.

If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.

LD Paradigm

Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").

Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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