Disads: Good. Read them.

Topicality: Good. Reasonability is bad.

Counterplans: Competitive counterplans are good.

Kritiks: I don't read a lot of K stuff. Explain what you are trying to say thoroughly. If I don't understand it, I won't vote for it.

Blue Valley North 2013-2017

update Nov 2019:

I don't debate anymore and don't coach teams. I haven't judged any rounds on the topic. DO NOT assume I automatically know topic acronyms or core args bc I don't. Please help me out by being as specific as possible. In an effort to be transparent, I'll let you know here I'm probably not the best for you to go your absolute fastest on - its been a while :(. I judged a couple tournaments last year. The more removed I am from debate the more I realize I really really hate wasting time in rounds. Be efficient in argumentation. Don't feel like you need to use all speech time if you know you don't need to. If you're confident you're winning, show it (but dont be a jerk). In the words of the wise, here for a good time not a long time

Email chain -- nobat11@gmail.com

General: I don't believe it's my job to keep you from debating how you want to. Please specify acronyms! If I can't distinguish between your tags and card text, you're in a bad place. I would like to clearly hear authors and dates. Make my flow look good! dont be aggressive -- don't let competition get out of hand. Be nice -- especially during cx. I don't care who you are, but you're not any more important or special in my mind than anyone else in the room so don't act like it. This is especially true if you're rude to your partner. don't be extra!!

Evidence quality: If card quality isn't contested by your opponent, then I probably won't look at it, and I'll prioritize spin. Don't say "their link ev is trash". Instead tell me which card and why, and in that case I'll give it less weight.

Topicality (v policy): affs should be specific in their defense. negative teams should force them to do that. I need examples on T too. Specific instances of abuse > general potential abuse. fairness alone isn't an impact- it's an internal link to education. I'll default competing interps. That does not mean I can't be persuaded to vote on reasonability. I want specific reasons though, not generic blocks.

Plan-less Affs & FWK: You'll probably ((definitely)) have to do more explanation than you normally do. I believe that any aff should defend something that deviates from the status quo and that the aff should have some relation to the topic. If following the 1AC, I don't know what voting aff does or where the topic is involved, I'm going to have a tough time writing an RFD in your favor. Ks of T and framework are legit, and a neg team is going to have a rough time without a good TVA.

DA: nothing new here. Your link story needs to be pretty specific and very solid. 8-card politics disads are improbable and boring.

CP: I don't have any biases against any particular type. some are more susceptible to theory than others, but I won't do that work for the aff. Other than that, go wild.

Theory: Love it. I evaluate these a lot like I do T debates so that section applies here. I default to rejecting the argument before the team.

K: This is where you'll need to help me out the most. I'm probs not the best judge for your K tricks. Using buzz words in place of coherence and logic will frustrate me, and therefore you. Indicts of the alt and link turns are the best way to get my ballot for the aff. If your thing is 1-off Baudrillard, I don't want you to feel as if it's impossible for you to win. Just assume that I've never heard of it before and explain it and the alt really well. If you're good with the arg, then that shouldn't be much of an issue.

In general: Write the ballot for me. The less I have to think writing the ballot, the better for you and the better for me. You'll be much happier with the result if my RFD is words that came out of your mouth.

Misc: I generally don't like to vote on things that happen outside the round. Unless I'm there to see it or have clear proof, I can't really justify it. Tech > truth. Dropped argument is true unless the other team tells me why the evidence behind the dropped arg is bad or mistagged.

If I've missed anything or if anything isn't clear -- ask beforehand

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 dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

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.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

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. 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. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

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.

School Affiliation: No Current Affiliation
College: UMKC/KCKCC/UW-Oshkosh (Outrounds/speaker awards at most regional tournaments and doubles of CEDA)
Experience: 15 years in the activity: 3 years high school; 4 years college; 7 years coaching (KC Central, Olathe North, Neenah, Blue Valley West, Jefferson City, and Marquette University High School (DOD))
Rounds Judged on Topic: 15

Updated 10/5/2020

Add me to the email chain for the round: ctcb57@gmail.com


I'll preface everything by indicating that I'm from the "do what you want" camp. However, since the community wants us to have some guidelines to our philosophy, here they are:

T – I think it’s pretty important, especially on topics where the resolution has words that aren’t very static with their definition. I tend to give a little more weight to education arguments than fairness arguments, unless there is a good limits argument made in the debate. I very much believe that T debates need to be framed to say what arguments are/aren't allowed under each team's interpretation and why that is good/bad. I also think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate T. I'm somewhat sympathetic to a variety of T arguments on this topic, so don't be afraid to go for it in the 2NR if you feel that you're ahead on it.

Theory – I'm usually more sympathetic to aff teams on conditionality in the instance that the neg reads 3 or more conditional advocacies. I also believe that certain CP's are abusive (word PICs, consult, conditions), but I'm willing to listen to them. More recently, I've found myself to be more receptive to States CP theory, particularly when the CP has additional planks which accompany the States acting simultaneously. Another argument that I've become more receptive to has been floating PIKs bad, particularly because of the amount of abuse that occurs late in the debates. However, on most other issues I tend to err neg for the sake of having debates about substantive issues. I tend to prefer functional competition over textual competition. Lastly, I usually err to reject the argument, not the team unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.

K’s – I'm pretty comfortable with the K and usually judge a lot of "clash of civilization" debates. While I'm not completely immersed in all K authors (namely Baudrillard and Deleuze), I'm still familiar enough to adequately evaluate the round. If the alternative doesn't solve itself, I often find myself voting aff. I, like many others, believe that the neg gets the right to the K. Also, I don't necessarily enjoy listening to framework debates against K aff's. I would much rather prefer that you engage their advocacy/argument. However, if there lacks a stable advocacy in the 1AC and the neg cannot get any links off of it, I'm much more inclined to listen to framework. Most recently, I've found myself being substantially more receptive to Framework when there is either a.) Bad ground for the neg provided the aff b.) An advocacy which doesn't not affirm in the direction of the resolution and c.) The aff can be read on the negative i.e. switch side solves. If you are reading a K aff with an advocacy, the best way to be ahead in Framework debates is to really contextualize what your advocacy does and what the ballot symbolizes/does because these are the only way I believe you can get solidified internal links to the offense you'll use against Framework. Honestly, if I can't succinctly explain what the aff does at the end of the debate, it's probably a good sign I won't vote for you. Also, topical version of the aff is a really compelling argument for me. At the end of these debates, the team that is winning the framing of the debate is usually the one that wins the round. Another thing to note is that in K vs. K rounds, I usually find myself voting for the team that wins the direction of the internal links. If that is the locus of your strategy in these debates, you're doing something right.

Performance - I think that you need to have some form of an advocacy that at least affirms the direction of the topic. I still have yet to see many of these debates, so I'm not quite sure how I would evaluate the performance aspect of it, unless it is accompanied by some decent justifications in the 1AC/1NC.

CP’s –All of the theory questions are above. I tend to err neg on the question of CP solvency in the world that the aff doesn't have a DA to the CP or solvency deficit. Also, in the world of the neg PIC'ing out of a portion of the plan, you must have some form of a solvency deficit or I will probably give full weight to the net benefit. Further, I believe that a CP should have a solvency advocate so that we can prevent some of these ridiculous CP text/no evidence arguments. I would say that I prefer these debates more than K debates.

DA’s – Once again, I enjoy these debate more than K debates. On politics, I also tend to give a bit more weight to impact defense than some judges and will not vote because "risk of a link" was uttered by the neg. You usually need to have a fairly convincing link story to easily win these debates. However, when combined with an effective CP or case defense, both of those issues become less important. I am also a huge fan of overviews that explain how the DA turns the case, or creates a solvency deficit for the aff.

Online debate - Please make sure your microphones and headsets are working properly and that you have your video camera on. Often times I have found myself being unable to hear someone because they're either too close to their mic and it's muffled or they have a really bad connection. I will yell clear once, but afterwards I will just try my best to flow you. Also, ensure you're recording this speech elsewhere while you're giving it because I've run into several issues when the debater's computer freezes or NSDA Campus decides to be unfriendly to us. I will keep track of prep time on my own, so please be sure to not abuse this.

Closing notes – This philosophy is just a basic guideline to my thought process in evaluating debates. In reality, you can run whatever you want, as long as you have a defense of it. The main question I try to answer at the end of these debates is "who does the most good?". If you're on the right side of that argument, you're probably going to win the round. Also important to note, this activity is supposed to be academic and professional. This means that you should not be rude to each other. When people do that, it honestly makes the judge feel awkward and very likely to vote against you. For overviews, make them mean something i.e. explain the implications of the argument and then in the rebuttles use it to isolate very important arguments that you happen to be winning. To close, make sure that you have fun in the round, which means have some jokes and lighten up the mood in the room.

Thomas Cox - BVW Assistant Coach

Rounds judged on the topic - 18

**KCKCC elims update**

The more I judge the more I realize I don't know anything. This level of debate is higher than what I typically debated and higher than what I typically judge. I can work with advanced policymaker args, but like the rest of my paradigm says, you'll have to do a phenomenal job on the K to pick me up. A good rule for me, as well as in life, is assume the person you're talking to knows less than you do. Although I'm an assistant coach, my duties don't really extend beyond making sure kids don't die on the weekends and judging rounds. I don't have time to do topic research and familiarize myself with all the common args on this topic. You'll have two other judges who are probably way more qualified than me. You can ignore me or you can try to cater parts of the debate to what I can handle. Either way, good luck and have fun.

**

I debated for Blue Valley West from 2010-2014. I have just began working for them as an assistant coach. I was not active with debate while I was in college, so I am sort of reentering the community and space. I likely can't handle the speed that the veteran coaches and judges can on this circuit, but you can still be quick.

Policymaker

It's all about impact framing and calculus.

Topicality - I've seen a few T debates but am still not entirely familiar with the topic literature. I default competing interps but will not rule out reasonability if the aff is doing a better job debating it.

Counterplans - if your CP text is longer than your solvency card and you spread the text to the point that I can't understand it, I will probably kick your CP for you. I've found that I tend to give the aff a little more leeway on CP debates. I personally never once had a CP in my 2NR. My gut tells me most of the "cheating CPs" are actually cheating, but that's up for the aff to prove.

Kritiks - I did not debate the K and I have not seen any critical debates in the past four years. Proceed cautiously. But don't let me dissuade you from giving it a spot in the 1NC if it's your bread and butter. You'll probably be able to tell from my facial reactions what I think of it.

Theory - typically a reason to reject the arg not the team, then the theory debate just turns into a battle of the blocks. If you want to win a round on a theory arg, be ready to really engage the flow and step away from your blocks by the last rebuttal.

Disads - read them. Give overviews. Tell me why it turns the case, not just that it does. Same goes for the aff - I should be hearing why your advantage turns the disad. Engage each other's impact calc. Your impact won't likely win on all three of timefram, prob, mag. So you need to tell me why what you do win is most important.

Other notes

When you all have fun, I have fun. Nothing beats a competitive debate with lots of clash and competitors who are generally respectful towards each other. Don't be too much of a jerk.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

I’ll vote for whatever you want to read. I like creative arguments and find rounds to be more enjoyable when teams directly clash with one another instead of card dumping and shadowing extending into the 2nd rebutalls. The difference between a good team and a great team is the ability to think critically during rounds and make strategic choices. Don’t go for the buffet 2nr because you think you are winning everything. This is an easy way to lose a round and I’ve seen it a lot this year. If you read any kind of theory argument you should put some thought into your interp and understand that if you are responding to any theory argument you need to actually debate and not read your 13 point block at hyper speed and hope that they drop a standard. In my eyes a good debate happens when teams understand their evidence, their arguments, and strategically prioritize arguments that they think will win the round.

Go go as fast as you want. Read what you want. I want to see a debate where teams show they put the time and effort in outside of round and use that effort to be persuasive and technically proficient.

I think debate is a game. I think the way you win a game is to leverage your advantages while removing your opponents opportunities. Do not be afraid to go for 5 minutes of theory if they didn’t respond well. Don’t be afraid to go for the K, I went for it a lot.

Have fun and put your hard work to bear.

Email: thomasdb8@gmail.com

4 yrs policy Newton HS (kansas)

3 yrs parli at William Jewell.

Loose guidelines for convincing me to vote for you:

1. Do good impact calc on the internal link level. The more specific and precise your impact story is, the more likely I'll buy it. I vote on the impact i believe the most.

2. Don't misconstrue evidence. I’m flowing for warrants, not taglines.

3. BE NICE! BE KIND! BE COMPASSIONATE! BE UNDERSTANDING! Debate should be the safest academic space, please help to make that true.

i'm very familiar with critical and performative argumentation, please feel free to read any type of argument.

Ask me any questions you have!

I am a Policymaker judge that also pays attention to the Stock issues. I believe that I can handle a faster rate of delivery as long as it is articulated well. I debated in high school and have been an assistant debate coach for over a decade. If most everyone else understands the delivery, odds are that I will also. If you fear you might be going too fast or not certain that you are being clear you are probably correct and I would suggest slowing down. If I can't understand you I will not say "clear" I will only understand less. Fast delivery does not mean stronger arguments.

I expect the 1AC to present a plan text. I also prefer case-specific evidence for links to DA's. I'm fine with Counterplans but I am not an advocate or fan of Kritiks or theoretical debate.

I expect everyone to be polite, courteous and professional. I genuinely care about this event and everyone involved.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

Shawnee Mission East ‘17

University of Kansas ‘21

Assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East

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

***Updated***

I graduated from KU this past May after debating for the team all four years of college. Previous to that I debated for Shawnee Mission East and have been coaching there for the past 5 years now. Although I am still coaching, I am way less active in debate than ever before. I am a real adult now with a big girl job and responsibilities. That being said I am still down to listen to whatever you want to say and am more than capable of keeping up with the debate, but acronyms and assertions will take more time to click in my head since I have barely done any judging on this topic. Below are some of my thoughts over the years, honestly take them or leave them. If you win the debate you win the debate, I don't care what args get you to that point. All the top level stuff is definitely still 100% applicable though.

Top Level

I am very expressive and you will know what I am thinking. Use that to your advantage

I appreciate jokes and confidence, but don’t cross the line

Disclosure is good

Tech over truth (a dropped argument is a true one as long as it contains a claim and a warrant)

I will not vote on anything that happened outside the round

Clipping or cheating of any kind will result in an immediate loss and 0 speaks

Please respect your partner. It is my biggest pet peeve to see one member belittle the other and act superior. You are only as good as your partner, and please act that way.

** Do whatever you want, my thoughts do not determine how you should debate

Aff’s

I was a 2A for a long time and because of that, I really appreciate well thought out aff’s with a strong internal link chain. If your evidence is bad/ internal links are weak how are you expecting to defend the aff? That being said I have stayed strictly policy and have rarely strayed from big stick impacts. I am open to listening to anything as long as you can defend and explain the aff. I think case debate is very important, too many teams don’t use the offense they have built to their advantage. Spend time extending your impacts and making cross comparisons to other arguments. I also really appreciate new and tricky policy affs that are unexpected.

T vs traditional aff’s

I am a big fan of T debates and feel that they can be particularly compelling and interesting. I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by reasonability if done well. Spend time on impact comparison and explaining the violation, I am most persuaded by limits and precision impacts. T is never a reverse voting issue!

Framework

I've never read a planless aff and generally always go for framework or a CP. That being said I do find framework compelling and tend to lean heavily negative. Don’t think my predispositions mean you can get away with a shoddy job on framework and expect to win the round. I am most persuaded by clash based impacts and will award negatives who are able to explain their argument, 2N's that can give the speech primarily off the flow will be rewarded. I also appreciate different approaches to dealing with planless affs. Reading DA's and CP's against K aff's is cool and fun, you should do it. That being said, it is very easy for me to vote aff if you win your impact turn outweighs their impact or an interp that solves a lot of their offense.

Theory

With the exception of condo, I think all other theory based arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team. I will not vote on cheap shot theory arguments. 2 condo is good, 3+ I can be persuaded, but need a warranted and contextualized explanation of your interp and why it should not be allowed in debate.

DAs

Probably my favorite argument in debate. I think a 2nr that is a DA + good case debate is very compelling. I prefer specific links, but there are some instances when generics work too. You need updated evidence!! I will award teams who have obviously spent time cutting new and good evidence. Please make turns case arguments, this is vital in a DA debate. And yeah i like the politics DA.

CP

I also love a good counterplan debate. I think specific counterplans cut from the other teams evidence is especially compelling and I will award you for that. I am neg leaning on a lot of counterplan theory questions, but i can be sympathetic. Really big plank CP's are also fun, adding planks that predicts what offense the 2a will go for is strategic.

Kritiks

The aff should get to weight the implementation of the aff against the K or the squo. I personally do not go for K's extremely often but when I do they tend to be literature based on neolib, security, and other topic generic K's. While I am not super into high theory lit, I have debated lots of these K's and you should not change your strategy because of me. If your thing is high theory K's, just do a little more contextualization and explanation and you'll be fine!

Neg: Please do not hesitate to go for the K with me in the back of the room, but I want a clear explanation of the alt and the link. I think that specific links are particularly important and need to be utilized. Links of omission are not links.

Aff: please impact turn the K if applicable

Please feel free to email me with any questions

Margo Johnson

Debated for four years at Blue Valley Southwest

Senior at the University of Kansas but am not debating. I judged a ton when I was a freshman and sophomore, but it's been a sec since I've judged and I know literally nothing about the 2019-2020 topic.

Speaker positions in high school: 2A/1N

Top level

1. Tech > truth

2. A dropped argument is a true argument only if it’s extended with a warrant.

3. Impact calc plays a large part of my decision.

4. Read a plan text and defend it.

5. Disclosure is good.

Topicality

Affs with a plan – I evaluate topicality under competing interpretations, but I can be persuaded by reasonability. I find limits the most persuasive standard. I think fairness is a real impact. The neg should have a case list and topical version of the aff, if possible. Most times I'd rather vote on a disad than topicality, and I don't think I'm the best judge for a super techy T debate, but if you're winning the flow and if the aff just isn't T I'm happy to vote on the argument.

Affs without a plan – I think affirmatives should defend a plan text with the United States federal government as the actor. I think the state is generally good. I think the state is redeemable. I don’t think reading structural violence impacts and defending the state are mutually exclusive. If your aff is contrary to anything aforementioned, I’m not the best judge for you. I’m easily persuaded by framework/T, especially topical version of the aff. That being said, I still will vote for an aff without a plan. If the neg does not win the framework/T flow on a tech level, I'll vote for the aff. However, in a debate where both teams are being competent, I'm more neg leaning on the argument. Easiest neg ballot is a combination of winning the state is good + topical version of the aff + no aff solvency + your interp. The roll of the ballot is to vote for the team who won the debate.

Counterplans

I like counterplans a lot, especially if they’re textually and functionally competitive and have a solvency advocate. Judge kick is fine. Solvency is not a net benefit to a CP. You need actual offense. In a CP+DA debate, I find myself almost always looking at the disad first and then I evaluate the CP. So if you've probably won the CP but you haven't won the disad, I will have a harder time voting for the CP.

Cool counterplans – advantage counterplans, executive CPs, states CPs

Bad counterplans – process CPs, consult CPs, delay CPs, word PICs

Questionable counterplans – PICs, international CPs

Theory

Theory is generally a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I guess the only exception to this is condo. I have a very high threshold for voting on condo if answered and think 3-4 conditional advocacies is fine. Sure, I'll evaluate no neg fiat. Cheap shots are cool.

Kritiks

I don't particularly prefer kritiks, but if you win the flow, I'll vote for them. I am not well versed in critical literature. I’m fine with neolib, security, imperialism/colonialism, and biopower debates, but past that you run the chance of losing me, and it'll be difficult for me to vote for any kritik but those listed above. I really don’t want to listen to an identity debate. And I really really don’t want to listen to any high theory debates like Deleuze or Baudrillard or psychoanalysis or anything like that like please no strike me now.

Aff – Weigh your aff! I’m usually persuaded that the aff outweighs and turns the kritik. As I mentioned, impact calc is really important. Make sure to answer K tricks because that is a place I will vote and voting on fiat is illusory will make me v sad. Also explain how your perm functions. If you’re going for perm do both, you need to explain how the plan and the alternative functions in the world of the affirmative. If I don’t know what your perm does, I can’t vote for it.

Neg – You need to have a clear link to the aff. Links to the topic and links of omission aren’t links. Links should be generated off the mandate of the plan or the plan’s advantages. I need to know what your alternative does. If you’re into using lots of fancy long words in your alt text but aren’t into explaining what that actually means, I will be more persuaded by no alt solvency. I hate do nothing alts. I think the best alts access institutions. Don't concede case in the 2NR. I most likely won't vote for you if you do that. Although I didn’t read kritiks on the neg often, I read soft left affs my senior year and wouldn’t consider myself a util hack.

K v K debate – No

Disads

DA+case and CP+DA debates are my favorites. I love politics. Turns case arguments are really important. Link shapes uniqueness. The aff should take advantage of the DA if the neg improperly kicks out of it.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:

Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.

Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail

Case/DA

Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.

Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.

CP

Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.

Topicality

Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.

Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.

Critical Affs

Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.

You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate

K

Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

Kendall Kaut

Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009; Assistant Debate Coach 2021-present

Baylor- 2009-2013

I want emails. kendallkaut@gmail.com

Having been in the activity for a while--with a break in the middle of the last decade--debate goes through cycles on the major questions that make up good philosophies. Debate is in an excellent place in terms of people having answers to arguments, and the top teams are exceptional and make it worth the long hours we spend at tournaments.

Here are some areas that may be helpful if you get me, and some areas I may deviate from the consensus. These are also thoughts on a debate that features two teams of similar ability. Some of this will seem, "Old man yells about where kids today have gone wrong," but I'm just trying to be as upfront as possible about what I think.

*Frame the ballot more-I know we're in a cycle where overviews--at least in the 2NR/2AR--have gone out of vogue. It would behoove both sides to spend the first 20 seconds or so explaining why the one or two issues you might lose on are outweighed by the one or two issues you're winning the debate on. It's also probably more valuable to forego one argument you might want to extend to also frame key segments of the debate. So if someone reads biz con, and the 2AR is going for "biz con is not key to the economy," the 2NR should probably explain, "Look, even if it's normally not key to the economy, the affirmative links so much that their models that say it's fake shouldn't be relied upon," or the 2AR should explain, "The negative may be crushing us that we collapse confidence, but given there's never been any correlation between it--businesses will keep spending money even when they're upset/uncertain because they know they'll lose money if they don't--you should not buy the voodo science of biz con." I've been frustrated some that I feel like recently--especially in good elim debates--the panels I'm on feature all of us having to intervene to a greater degree than we'd like, or decide to line up certain arguments while maybe not lining up arguments one side might want us to line up, because there's little framing of how arguments interact.

*Topic thoughts-It seems pretty clear this is a bad topic to be affirmative. Last year seemed quite difficult to be negative (though we let the negative get away with a lot on some goofy process CPs). There aren't that many affirmatives. Uniqueness for the economy DA seems to be trending toward the negative. That means I am more sympathetic that you don't have to write the longest plan text ever, but I still think affirmative vagueness is an issue. If you read six words or so as a plan text, I will look toward your solvency evidence for what you do. Teams have been honest in debates I've judged, but yes, I think you need to answer how the plan is funded, and that is CP ground for the negative.

*Truth continues to set the baseline for tech-There are indeed better arguments and claims than others. If you say, "The United States federal government is the states," and go for "perm do the CP" to answer the states CP, you better hope your opponent dropped the argument. If you say, "Taxation is genocide," you once again are probably not winning that argument unless it's conceded.

*Affirmatives need to go for theory more-I don't think there's any real reason the negative needs CPs that are not competitive under any real notion of theory. Big advantage CPs, states or PICs leave the aff in a dire position on this topic. Certainty/immediacy are not great legs to stand on for competition. CPs that result in 100% of the affirmative are also not great for debate. Agent CPs--unless the affirmative has specified or read an advantage tied to the agent--also make it difficult for the affirmative. But I continue to see teams decide to stake 2ARs on substance against these CPs. You can--but maybe won't--beat uncooperative federalism on substance. You are far more likely to dig-in and win on theory or competition.

*Conditionality probably needs to be reigned in soon-Two has always seemed fine to me. Once you get to four or so, it seems super dicey to me. Affirmatives should spend more time discussing why a 2AC against that many worlds is perilous, in particular for that debate. Negatives should spend time discussing why the affirmative had real arguments to make/go for in that debate that were not foreclosed by the number of advocacies/alternatives it read. Judging a 2NR/2AR that's solely, "2AC strat skew vs. negative flexibility," is far less persuasive than teams digging in on what did/could happen, and why a 2NR/2AR would be terminally screwed with the other's interpretation.

*I have yet to judge a T debate this topic-I think Medicare is almost assuredly not topical. The implications of reasonability need to be discussed more if that's what you plan to go for. Like theory, you're much better off describing why the affirmatives included/excluded are good, than having a generic, "Education or predictability," are better terminal impacts to T.

*The state of alternative debates has gotten terrible-I truly have no idea what it means in the debates I've judged this year when someone says, "We fiat the alternative." I can imagine a variety of things that means, which necessitates some explanation. The K is 50-50 in front of me this year. Too many K debaters are spending too much time on the link. The link is important. Some teams truly don't link, so it makes sense to spend time there. But too often, K debaters know that's the best part of the K, so they spend time where they're already ahead. It's much more valuable to explain the alt, or why you don't need an alt, or have a plan for what happens if you lose framework. K teams also rely way too often on "this is severance if we win our framwork," on permutations, but don't have a backup plan if I'm considering the affirmative. It's valuable to say a permutation is severance. It's especially valuable to say why it would also be bad to do if I allow the affirmative to weigh the plan.

*More Affirmative teams need to just defend what they've done is good against many Kritiks-Messy framework debates are the recipe for 2-1 decisions in elims. You can get around those by just saying capitalism or security logic/realism are good. You can certainly lose the debate on those things being bad, but you're likely to be in a better spot defending the thing you link to than relying upon framework to get the victory.

*Planless debates: Affirmatives need more defense to limits explosion; negatives need more impact explanation-In my heart, I think you should read a plan. I vote for plenty of no plan teams, just like I vote for plenty of process CPs. Affirmatives are basically spotting the link to giant limits DAs, or they're relying too much on defense/arguments about limits being a false concept. Planless affirmatives are much better explaining what the negative can say against you. This should also go beyond, "method debates," or "We have K v. K. debate." Explain what happens in those debates or people who would write answers to your arguments. Negatives need to spend more time explaining the terminal impact to framework. Fairness can be an impact.

*Partner prompting has gotten too wild-You kill ethos. If your partner truly doesn't know, or they are about to say the opposite of what the answer should be, or the argument should be, I get prompting. But points will suffer.

*Speaker point scale-30- I thought you were the best in the field. 29.9-29.6- You should get a speaker award. 29.5-29- You should clear; 28.9 and below- You did not debate like a team that deserved to clear in this debate. Points have gotten too high. I can't change that, and I will use the scale I must.

Email chain: aroogkhaliq@gmail.com

About

I am a sophomore at KU (majoring in english and psychology). I debated at Blue Valley West HS (KS) for four years, three of those years being in the DCI/Varsity division. I am not debating in college, although I occasionally judge HS debate. I've judged 0 policy rounds on the 2018-19 topic.

General

Speed: I have auditory processing difficulties. Be cognizant of that. If you are not clear, I will not be able to flow you. I want to be able to hear the words in the cards, and prefer that you go slower on tags. I'm a fan of a slower, more persuasive rebuttal.

Speaker Points: If you are rude and/or discriminatory, your speaks will suffer for it. Send me speech docs, because I am strict about clipping; if you clip, I will drop you with minimum speaks. Don't steal prep (everyone can tell when you do).

Philosophy: I don't have an ideological preference, and I will vote how you to tell me to vote (so be sure to articulate that). Impact framing/calculus is really important in how I evaluate the round. I think tech > truth.

We're all here to have a good time, so act like it and be respectful :)

DA

Neg: I evaluate the link first. Articulate the link well and give me impact calculus and turns case arguments early on in the debate. Pull through to the 2NR and develop the argument so when I'm evaluating the risk it's clear-cut. I'm not the biggest fan of politics DAs but I will listen to almost anything, so if you're going to go for it, give me a solid link and do the most with what I outlined above.

Aff: Come through with case outweighs and turns the DA arguments and gut the link. Explain why you outweigh and where the DA fails. Kill the link and it will be easy for me to decide who wins the DA.

CP

Neg: Read whatever you want as long as 1) you can answer applicable theory arguments well and 2) there's a legitimate net benefit attached (no, "CP solves better" does not count). Slow down on long CP texts and don't forget to hammer in why sufficiency > 1% risk of a solvency deficit.

Aff: If you're going for "XYZ type of CP is cheating" be ready to articulate how they're cheating, why I care, what ground you lost, etc. because I'm not doing the work for you there.

T

My favorite argument (so don't mess it up). Spend time here, specify what your interpretation does for the round and how this affects affs that can/'t be read and why they should/'nt be allowed. Give impacts and explain why yours should be evaluated over theirs. I usually default to competing interps but if your reasoning is good enough, I can be persuaded to evaluate under the lens of reasonability. A well-done 5 minute rebuttal on T will probably move me to tears and boost your speaks, so take from that what you will.

Theory

2 conditional advocacies is pretty standard; beyond 3, I can be swayed towards condo bad. You're probably not going to win without an interpretation and specific instances of in-round abuse. If this is bleeding into the 2AR, spend a full 5 minutes on it. Not really a fan of other theory arguments (most of them are reasons to reject the argument, not the team), but if you're following the above guidelines, I will weigh them.

K

K debates are fun! I read Cap in high school and am familiar with the lit. I am not really into framework debates (I usually went for cap against planless affs), so if you're a planless aff I'm not the best judge for you.

With any K, I need good link and impact articulation (links of omission are not going to persuade me), and you must flesh out the alt.

You will not persuade me with "Ks are cheating." Go for alt indicts and link turns. Make sure you can 1) explain why your perms are legitimate and 2) defend your mode of political action (don't give me generic "state good" cards; tell me why the state specifically is key to combating racism, misogyny, etc.).

TL;DR

Like Titus from Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, I am prone to face journeys, so you will definitely know if I'm lost; remedy that, or we will both have a bad time.

Debated four years at Lansing

Formerly debated at Washburn U

Do whatever you think is going to win you the round. I like seeing rounds that have both sides arguing what they like best. Reading an argument you don’t know / are uncomfortable with is risky and doesn’t work as good as what’s in your back pocket. A good rule of thumb is to explain your arguments that win you the round like I’m a kid. Doing this ensures we are on the same page and I don’t have to do work for you in the rebuttals. On the topic of speed, I can keep up but slow debates are my bread and butter. That said, Speed won’t lose you the debate by any means.

Disadvantages - Probably my favorite rounds to watch are ones that are DA v the Case. Impact calc debate is a tool that wins debates. Explain why the DA outweighs the case and how you might garner offense from any case turns.

Counterplan - love them. If the aff thinks a CP is cheating it’s their job to convince me why that’s the case.

Theory - I like theory debates. I’m not side biased so shoot your shoot and it could win you a round.

T - T debates are always fun. If there’s in round abuse I’d vote on that.

K - I never really ran K’s in highschool but college has made me understand them better. That said if you ran them just explain them like I’m a kid :) If it’s a fast round go slow on the alt / advocacy.

I probably missed some stuff so if you have questions feel free to approach me whenever so I can answer questions you might have.

Update: This is still accurate. I am actively coaching / cutting cards on the HS topic.

Put me on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com --- Makes life easier.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I debated 4 years in High School in Albuquerque, NM. I graduated in 1989.
I also debated for 4 years in College at Arizona State and transferred to UMKC. I won CEDA Nationals and graduated in 1994.
After that, I was a grad assistant at the University of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing mine from Genco to Kingston.
and then was a grad assistant at KU for a couple of years.
and then was the Assistant Director at UMKC until 2000.
From 1994 until 2000 I taught at a bunch of camps.
I've helped out several college teams here and there in the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and coaching Blue Valley Northwest on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

TL/DR: I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've judged a ton of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

K: Everyone wants to know if I'm ok with "the K" or "the criticism" or a "performance". Sure. That sounds good to me. I understand those types of arguments. I've become more up to date with some high theory and race/structural Ks. You do you. I don't hold them against you.

CP: You don't have to answer the aff if the Counterplan solves all of the aff and you should point out what disads/turns are net benefits to the counterplans. I do not default to judge kick. I default to you're stuck with what you go for unless you make some argument about it. If you make an argument about the counterplan being condo, then you have to kick it unless you make judge kick args.

DA: They're good. Uniqueness, link or impact defense, and foundational warrant comparison are all good ways to help resolve things. Please don't read generic impact stuff that doesn't take the context of the round into account. It helps my decision and comments if you differentiate your warrants or find ways to compare your link to the turn or vise versa. Do I believe in zero risk? Kinda. Dropped args are probably zero risk. But I default to the arguments made about risk. Generally though, I default to some risk on a contested debate unless the resolution of the arguments is made very clear (Uniqueness goes the wrong direction, dropped args with some analysis, deeper warrants etc.)

T: If you have a good interp you can defend and can do standard debating well, I'm willing to hear the debate.

K Affs: I have been more in touch with this style of debate in recent years. I'm pretty neutral in FW debates. If you're aff vs FW, isolate a couple pieces of offense and you should be all right.

Theory: I don't care about how many or what kind of condo if you can defend it.

Round Comments:

I try to stay neutral in my judging and vote on things said in the round, not things that I make up about things you say. I'll make things up if that's the only way to resolve stuff, but I never feel good about it. Don't make me feel bad, plz.

I don't care how fast you go as long as you don't have mush mouth and I can understand it.

I try not to be a jerk about prep time, please don't be a jerk about it either. That being said, we do have to have a debate and it does have to finish on time, so don't steal prep.

Also, don't clip cards. I read along in the speech doc.

Don't flash docs that contain a ton of cards you're never going to read, and don't mess with the speech docs (remove navigation, purposefully try to avoid sharing, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vice versa.

None of that doesn't mean that you can expect me to ignore arguments that aren't in a speech doc. If it was said, it's an argument. You should FLOW.

I don't like posturing between speeches and during CX in debates. If you have comments to make about the way the other team is debating or the arguments they choose, then you should make them as an argument in a speech.

Speaker Points: I'm trying to achieve more clarity about how I assign speaker points. This should give you a good idea about what I'm thinking when I assign them. This is a bit of an upward departure from points I have given in the past. Basically, I'm looking at points as a consideration of whether or not I think the debating you did was of elim rounds quality or that your performance was worthy of putting you on track to win a speaker award. I have my standards, but my points will probably end up being .2 or so higher than I have given in the past.

Bonus speaker points if you find a way to win that doesn't assume you win all of your arguments.

Have fun and Good Luck!

Jan 2024 Update:

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

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

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

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

Speed:

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

Argument preferences:

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

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

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

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

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

LD Paradigm:

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

Email: kumk5835@gmail.com

I would call myself tab but there is no such thing as tab and everyone who says so is a liar, they're all offense/defense judges because there is no such thing as a blank state everyone has their preconceptions about policy already.

Mine are as follows:

T is incredibly important and I will pull the trigger on this arg as long as you A. win your standards, B. explain the internal to your voter, C. win that your voters outweigh, and D. do the work on reasonability. In terms of voters I definitely lean towards fairness, I'm still willing to vote on education but if thats you all-in in the 2ar/2nr be warned. For me to vote on reasonability you probably have to win race to the bottom, and you have to have a pretty solid we meet. I evaluate reasonability like a perm. Ask if this is unclear in any way.

Das are cool, most of them are bullshit and if you're just shotgunning args onto the flow to outspread people, you have to do the work and if I dont understand your I/L story I'm not going to vote here if they have any decent ink on the flow. I also believe in terminal link deficits, meaning I dont care if they concede 8 extinction impacts if they can realistically prove that there just isn't a probable link. 1% risk is pretty bad for debate tbh.

K's are awesome, I love cap and state an bio-politics, I have a pretty solid grasp on most k lit present on the high school circuit, but if you're doing something wacky, just be clear why im voting for the alternative. Ex: if you read an unintelligibility alt, and don't say its an unintelligibility alt, you just are unintelligible, I'm not going to vote for you.

"pre/post fiat": Stolen from my homie Kenton Fox: I think the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" misconceptualize the function of an alt. Explain the alt as a methodology that can resolve the links and impacts of the k/1AC instead (this in no way means you shouldn't make in-round claims. Example - if you're reading psychoanalysis most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon the ballot, whereas if you're reading histomat most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon plan action proper. Most of the time when you talk about the "post-fiat" level of the alt you're just describing the world of the alt, which should be accessible (at some level) through the judges endorsement of the alternative

Perf con: I prefer the term ped con or pedagogical contradiction but w/e idc. I will vote on perf con if the alt is epistemic or pedagogical analysis. I believe these alts are best as 1-off or at least with DA's that are not morally contradictory. If you read a "counter-reformist reform" (silly term) 1ac with a indicts of the negs DA impacts, the DA doesn't even necessarily have to be morally contradictory at its core as long as you win the indicts. This does not mean I will always vote on perf con dont assume that you don't have to do the work.

K affs are fine, just have a warrant why its ok to be non-topical in the 1ac and you should still be tangentially connected to the topic. If you arent that cool but you're going to have to do a lot more work on the framework page or I'll just vote neg on fairness.

FW is just a way to evaluate the structure of debate, including the pedagogical and epistemic benefits of the activity. Framing is how the judge should evaluate impacts. This distinction will just make my flow clearer, and make it a lot easier for you to extend your framing/FW as my RFD in the 2ar/2nr.

Condo. I will vote on it if you win the standards/voters debate. I will not vote on one or two conditional advocacies, but past that you hit the point I'm willing to pull the trigger. Multi-plank CP's where each plank is condo is incredibly abusive and I will vote on this near 100% of the time as long as you do the work. I dont like these dont read them please.

CPs are fine, just not delay or multi-plank.

Disclosure: I hate this arg. Im liable to just toss it out because large schools with access to resources benefit the absolute most from things like wiki disclosure, and if you're a small school having disclosure read against you I will vote on an RVI; call it hacking, I don't care.

Experience: 4 years high school (2009-2013); 3 years college at Wichita State University (2013-2016); assistant coach at Maize High School (2014); assistant coach at Goddard High School (2015-2017).

Email: leflerbraden@gmail.com

I am most comfortable judging traditional policy debates because I spent the majority of my debate career reading traditional policy arguments. However, that does not mean that I am unable, or unwilling, to listen to and vote for critical arguments. However, if your k lit is very dense, you will likely need to explain your argument clearly for me to track your argument. As a general rule, I do not vote for arguments that I don't understand at the end of the round because I think it is your job to explain it effectively. All that being said, I did debate long enough that I encountered plenty of ks, and read some too, so I will certainly do my best to follow your argument if that is the route you wish to take the debate. The best advice is to do what you do best.

I spent a lot of time reading T and theory during my career, and think it can be strategic. If the aff is not T, or is implicated by some theory argument, then by all means make the argument. I generally think T should not be an amorphous part of the debate, and weighing the impacts of the interpretations is an avenue which can make T very persuasive, among many others.

I think good evidence and good evidence comparison are very important and can make the difference in close debates. Clarity is very important. If I cannot understand your argument, there is a low chance I vote on it. Be thoughtful and strategic with cx. Too often teams will not give up a line of questioning when it is clear they are not going to get the answer they want.

Otherwise I generally enjoy good strategic cp and da debates.

If you have any specific questions, do not hesitate to ask.

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

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.

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.

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

Blue Valley North 2013-2017

I haven't debated in a long time, and I don't know anything about this years topic so ~please~ keep that in mind.

General: For the most part I prefer if I can articulate what you're actually saying, but as long as I can understand the tags you're probably fine. If you go faster than I can understand I can't guarantee everything will make it on the flow, so especially make sure to emphasize arguments that aren't in speech docs or are particularly important/ you think should decide the round. I think the way you treat your opponents and partner in round is way more important than the fake arguments you're making, if you're rude I'll drop you its not that deep

Evidence quality: I'm not gonna care about this unless you tell me I should.

Topicality: I probably won't vote on this unless the aff is a really blatant violation of the topic.

Plan-less Affs & FWK: I am very policy oriented, your aff needs to defend a plan text.

DA: I like good, recent uq cards and specific links. Make sure to impact it out. I'll probably vote on a disad before anything else.

CP: I like counter plans a lot. I'll listen to anything, you might just have to do more analysis because its been a while.

Theory: Probably don't unless theres a good reason. Don't assume I know the jargon I default to rejecting the argument before the team.

K: I'm the least comfortable here. The easiest way for you to win the round is to NOT make critical arguments, but if thats literally the only thing you do at least take things slow for me. Have clear, coherent analysis and keep it light on jargon. You have to have an legitimate link and you must have a viable alt. As the aff, honestly all you have to do to beat a K in front of me is prove that they don't have one or both of those things.

In general: Tell me exactly why I'm going to vote for you at the end of the round, you'll be much happier with the ballot and my rfd.

Misc: Dropped arguments are true. I appreciate full speech docs with all your ev and arguments, it will be better for you on the flow. If you have questions about how I'll react to specific arguments please ask them before round so neither of us are surprised when you make them.

I debated 4 years in high school from 2011-2015 at Blue Valley Southwest (KS) and 3 years in college from 2015-2018 at the University of Kansas. During college debate I also coached/judged at high school tournaments in the KC area. Currently I am a community coach at Chicago Bulls College Prep.

I read policy arguments, but am not opposed to k debate. Do whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you can convince me of an argument, then I'll vote for it (within reason).

General:
Do whatever you're good at, I don't care.
-Speed: Yes.
-Disclosure: Yes
-Open Cross-X: Yes

Policy Debate:
This is the style I am most familiar with.
-Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why.
-Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team.
-Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.

K Debate:
I will listen to kritiks on both sides.
Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?).
Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing.
Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.

Theory:
I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to.
For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.

My Dog:

Nick Schroeder

Assistant coach at Blue Valley North High School

Debated at Washburn Rural High School

Updated 8/24/18

Email chain: schroedernick12@gmail.com

Feel free to ask questions before the round if you need clarification or detail on anything.

I debated for 4 years in high and 1 year in college. I usually judge around 20-30 rounds on each topic and gain more familiar with topic literature as the year progresses. In high school I debated mostly an offense/defense policy style with disads, CPs, case turns, and T. That said, I think debate should be an open intellectual space and am open to at least considering most argumentative positions.

T: My default is to competing interpretations. I believe winning reasonability still requires a resolution of the standards debate to prove the interpretation reasonable. That said, it could be effective in cases that the neg interp is arbitrary or if the aff justifies some interpretive flexibility. I like T debates that have a nuanced discussion of the standards and do a good job of impacting out why a certain interpretation creates a fairer and more educational world to debate in. Emphasizing how each standard internal links to an impact is important. Tying arguments such as precision, grammar, and source credibility to the way those things impact case lists, the research process, and ground division is the most effective way to win my ballot.

Theory: I don’t like deciding debates on small technical concessions on theory but could be persuaded to do so if there is a particularly egregious lack of contestation. I’m usually persuaded by reject the argument not the team but will vote otherwise in cases such as condo where a team successfully argues that the larger debate has been skewed.

K: Not my favorite argument form but not something you should feel apprehensive reading in front of me either. A lot of the K rounds I’ve judged I voted aff because the negative went for framing, link, and impact arguments without advancing much of the alternative. While I understand how the aff’s perpetuation of an immoral system is a form of negative offense, I’m generally persuaded by affirmatives that point to the aff as a method to solve a material problem anyway given the inevitability of whatever structure the negative is critiquing without an alternative. I find that I generally have a high degree of skepticism in the alt’s ability to rupture the status quo, so that is a good place to start for affirmatives. In the same sense, I think it is important that the 2NR on the K doesn’t abandon contesting the truth of the 1AC’s internal links or impact scenarios. In most debates where the block focuses heavily on the K and abandons any ambition of beating back the case, I tend to vote that the aff outweighs. I should say I have limited exposure to critical literature but should follow pretty well regardless. I enjoy framework debates that aren’t arbitrary and self-serving. Also, a good cx on the K from either side is nice to see.

Disad/CP/Case

I am most familiar with these arguments. I am easily convinced that delay, conditions, and consult CPs are cheating without specific solvency advocates to justify them. Solvency advocates in general are important to have when running theoretically questionable CPs in front of me. I think internal link defense is underutilized, and really enjoy seeing a discussion of the affirmative/DA’s logic in CX and rebuttals. If you think something doesn’t make sense, I probably think it doesn’t either. I think responsible scholarship is important, and sometimes entire flows can be defeated with a good CX and a few strong analytics.

Have fun and be nice.

he/his

mateen.shah [at] gmail [dot] com

debated at Wichita East HS 2008-2012; coached at Wichita East HS 2016-2020

In terms of my familiarity, Policy v. Policy >>> K v. Policy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> K v. K

Beliefs that can't be changed: condo good, new affs good, disclosure good, debate good

I felt my previous paradigm was too long and not helpful, so I've tried to make it more concise. I'm happy to vote on any argument, but I have the least experience with critical args. I'm happy to vote for Ks, but I'm unfamiliar with most. I may miss some nuance if the debate becomes technical due to shortcomings in my personal knowledge. I haven't judged in a few years, so my flowing has suffered.

Curtis Shephard

Email Chain - cshephard@usd266.com

I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality

It's all about the game and how you play it.
All about control and if you can take it.
All about your debt and if you can pay it.
It's all about pain and who's gonna make it.

You've got your rules and your religion
All designed to keep you safe
But when rules start getting broken
You start questioning your faith
I have a voice that is my savior
Hates to love and loves to hate
I have the voice that has the knowledge
And the power to rule your fate

Um, it's gon' be, what it's gon' be
Five pounds of courage buddy, base tan pants with a gold tee
Ugh, it's a war dance and victory step
Of all stances, a gift and you insist it's my rep

I am cold like December snow
I have carved out this soul made of stone
And I will drag you down and sell you out
Embraced by the darkness, I'm losing the light
Encircled by demons, I fight What have I become, now that I've betrayed
Everyone I've ever loved, I pushed them all away
And I have been a slave to the Judas in my mind
Is there something left for me to save
In the wreckage of my life, my life

The Dr. will see you now

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Blue Valley North 2014-2018

General: I debated for Blue Valley North for four years as primarily a 1A/2N. I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic so when using topic specific acronyms or phrases please break them down for me and then I’ll catch on. In terms of argumentation feel free to do whatever you want, just know that I am probably not the best judge for super K oriented debates but if that’s your thing then I will do my best to keep up. I default to tech over truth so dropped arguments have lots of merit and points of contest require specific warrant comparison/analysis rather than surface level claims. Evidence quality is important for winning debates. I will default to how the debaters spin the evidence, but under highlighted cards that don’t really say anything will generally not be persuasive, especially if your opponent calls you out for that. Don't be rude during CX.

Overall, I try not to intervene at all as a judge, so your arguments should write my RFD for me. Make it clear what is important and set a clear framing for what I should consider important.

email chain - avanyish@gmail.com

Topicality: competing interpretations is probably a better framing for T debates than reasonability, however, I can be convinced otherwise if the affirmative has a robust explanation of why I should prefer reasonability. The negative team should have specific impacts to their limits or ground arguments. Specific instances of abuse are greater than general potential abuse. FYI don’t spread your t-blocks at me top speed because that’s not ideal.

Framework/Planless Affs: I am down to listen to planless affirmatives, but this is definitely an area where explanations of how the affirmative functions and why the deviation from policy action is beneficial to solvency need to be fleshed out for me. For framework debates I think the negative should have a TVA and specific examples of how the aff hinders fairness or education rather than just generic “policy education good” arguments.

DA: Intricate DA debates are super cool, link turns and internal link turns are things I would encourage (offense is always good). For disadvantages I am down for whatever, but make sure that the cards in the 1NC shell have real warrants and aren’t under highlighted and then blown up in the 2NC because then I will be sympathetic to 1AR spin. Recent UQ cards will always be more advantageous than older cards and specific links to the affirmative should be present at some point in the debate. Try to avoid ridiculous internal link chains, but if your opponent doesn’t call you out for it then… last thought is that specific impact calculus will help you a lot especially with turns case arguments.

CP: Do whatever you want here. Advantage CPs and PICs are smart. The more specific the CP is to the aff the better so I am all about that.

Case: Big fan of good case debates. Impact turns and smart warranted defense on the affirmative can go a long way in assigning zero probability to the affirmative.

K: You can read any K you want and a win is possible, but you should be specifically explaining the links and should have specific links to the aff. The most important thing for me is alt solvency. Please explain how the alt is able to resolve the links of the affirmative prevent the impact. Buzz words and k tricks are probably not the best strategy when I am, in the back of the room, but if you logically explain your argument then I can probably follow it. I am relatively familiar with arguments about Cap/Neolib and biopower and even with those arguments you should be explaining the specifics of how the K functions. Framework on the K goes a long way for both the affirmative and negative team and if the aff has disads to the alt then I find that particularly persuasive. Links of omission are fake.

Theory: My default is to reject the argument not the team. Theory debates are similar to T debates for me so have specific instances of abuse and what the implications of X theory violation are and why that is a reason to reject argument or even team.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

If we’re still doing email chains, I’d prefer to be on them: mwagenheim@outlook.com 

Overview: 

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round.  I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them. 

Specifics: 

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument. 
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen. 
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why. 
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about. 
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards. 
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered. 

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy. 

About me: I debated all 4 years of high school and I am a freshman at KU.

General Approach: It's your job to win my ballot, not mine. I'm willing to vote on a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that's not a decision I want to have to make and I won't do any of your work for you (i.e. tell me what I should be voting on and why). If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then I expect you to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one 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 you win 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). Tell me where the work you're doing goes and what it's responding to, I won't do it for you.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody that I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you.
• Cross Examination - Don't use cross-ex to make arguments, and don't badger each other incessantly. Make your point or get an answer, then move on.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer, but I won't take it upon myself to 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)

• 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 developed beyond each side establishing that they have a framework different from the other team.
• Kritiks - I am not the biggest fan of them, but you can still win on it. I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. It also help if you do plan to go for it you spend time on it and truly explain the alt. I also per if you slow down on them.
• 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 developed beyond each side reading a frontline.

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• IMPACT CALC!!!!
• 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 where you choose what to win the round on. I don't want you to try to win it multiple times in multiple ways, I want you to win it once and in the best way possible.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

Debated at the University of Kansas (3 years) | Assistant at Shawnee Mission South

TL;DR:

I'm fine with speed. K affs are a legitimate strategy, but I do find myself having a bias for framework (i.e. should things break even - which hardly happens - I would probably vote for framework). K's are fine, but links to plan action are preferable (unless your framework convinces me otherwise). I strongly dislike it when you're being a jerk and your speaker points will reflect this if you are being one.