please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

Istealprep@gmail.com

AND

BabciiDebate@gmail.com

It is pronounced Bab (ki) not Bab (chee).

I debated for Wichita State and JCCC. Currently an assistant coach @ Wichita State.

Top level

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

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

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will keep a strict flow and decide the debate based on that flow and nothing else.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

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

Planless affirmatives

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

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. You forfeited the right to say that when you disagreed that we are all here playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG evaluating policy proposals. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

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

Framework/T-USFG

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

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

TVA's matter a lot to me. I think well deployed TVAs are nearly unbeatable.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.

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

K's on the neg

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.

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

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If you can't win against a 2AC that straight turned a DA then you should lose or put in a 1NC CP that fiats out of the straight turn.

Disadvantages

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

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

Case

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

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

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

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

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

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

I understand why we stopped because of Covid, but I miss handshakes between opponents. That being said, don't shake my hand.

yes email chain - babciidebate@gmail.com

judge for mill valley, westwood, and wichita east

TLDR- i debate at wichita state in college and used to debate at jccc, i do mostly policy stuff in college, fine with k's on both the aff and neg

top level

debate is a game and educational activity, it ought to be fair but there are other considerations as well

do what you do best! this is advice for both content and form

arguments need to have a claim and a warrant - this includes evidence - christmas tree highlighting of scary words is not an impact argument

k on the aff

Be related to the topic or don't, just have a solid defense of what you want to defend and why i should vote for it

i am agnostic on what is the best impact for framework or the best way to answer framework. this is not me trying to be tabula rasa, but simply a lack of framework 2nrs in my career and thus a lack of conclusive opinions on the subject. whatever you can explain the best and tell a coherent story with is the one you should go with

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

K on the neg

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

most teams f/w interps usually aren't mutually exclusive with each other

unless told otherwise i will default to utilitarian calculus - which means the burden is typically on the negative to posit an alterantive view of ethics and impact calculus

Topicality

interp quality obviously matters but only insofar as it is impacted out and compared to other reasons i should value an interp

i usually default to competiting interps as reasonability is often packaged as a reason why limits are bad - you should just make that argument - saying the aff should get a lot of affs to pick from and the neg should just do more research isnt that hard of a sell imo

CP

will default to judge kick unless the 1ar says something about it - the 2ar is not the time to start the judge kick debate

i honestly have no clue how anyone evaluates cp's besides sufficeincy framing and i have yet to hear a alternative way to evalaute them

everything is legit until someone says it isn't in which case it becomes a debate - create competition as you may

DA

1nc's need to be full arguments with uniqueness, link, and impact - if one of these is missing the 2ac has my full authority to say "not an argument im not answering it until it is" and i will allow the 1ar to make as many new arguments as they want against the da

Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is

there is not 'always a risk' - there is 'always a risk' of just about anything thats called randomness

misc

speaker points are my decision and i will not listen to arguments about them

a lot of how i think about debate is influenced by justin stanley, matthew vega, and phil samuels

Email - zachary.x.botkin@gmail.com

"Don't be a dummy" - Sohail Jouya

My internet is terrible, so I'm going to leave off my camera to make sure that y'all don't get cut off.

debated 3 years at Lansing and graduated in 2020

I've been out of debate completely for 2ish years now - this tournament is the first I've judged in a long time so you might want to treat me as a flay judge

yes add me to the chain

email: amberdawsondebate@gmail.com

general

****please don't go card speed in rebuttals

-condo is usually the only reason to reject the team

-judge kick is fine unless otherwise contested

-dont waste cx, have some sort of plan

-more than 6 off starts to get excessive

-for speed, go just a bit slower for online tournaments then you would at a normal one

T

-please slow down on analytics especially in the 1ar and beyond

-I really enjoy t debates and I think sometimes it under utilized as a strategy

-I generally default to competing interps

-2ar/2nr should do a really good job comparing models and case lists are always good, as well as specific examples on the grounds debate on what you lose/gain

-if you're going for reasonability in the 2ar do a good job of explaining what the reasonable interp of your model looks like contextual to competing interps - most important time to do model debate

cp

-process cp's are fine but I don't think 2a's go for theory enough against explicitly cheating cp's - utilize theory if you can

-functional and textual competition is pretty important

-please say counterplan instead of ceepee, it pains me deeply

k

not my specialty especially high theory but,

-specific links are always good

-links of omission probably aren't links - you'd have to do a lot of work to convince me otherwise

-do a lot of work on alt explanation, please don't leave it up to me to make a guess as to what it does

-if you're aff dont forget you have an aff - weigh your impacts

-explain the perm in some capacity in the 2ac - dont shotgun 14 perms in a row - explaining them gives me ink time and means the neg doesnt just have to group them

k aff

-not much to say here, read whatever you're comfortable with but be prepared to do a lot of explaining

-being in the direction of the topic is probably best

v k aff

-i think a lot of the time teams read a k in the 1nc as a throw away arg which is not a good strat - either put a lot more on case or utilize the k you read

-fairness being an impact is a toss up - this one's up to debaters

-have a terminal impact in the 2nr!!

-even if you dont have a lot of cards on the alt, some good analytics will go a long way

Last updated 9/26/2022

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

General/Sparknotes if you're about to walk into round:

1. I'll vote on anything that isn't offensive

2. I won't vote for you if you're discriminatory in the round towards anyone (including your own partner)

3. Clarify pronouns before the round. If you misgender your opponent after pronouns were stated, you're getting lowered speaks and if they make it a voting issue I'd be inclined to agree unless you explain why you shouldn't lose the round for it. If it comes across as deliberate you're losing the round.

4. Unless you don't have a choice, try to run arguments you understand

5. I'm going to prefer one card with good warrants over 5 cards with weak warrants.

6. Please give roadmaps and signpost. If you’re going fast allow for pen time (or keyboard time, as my recent flowing habits have gone digital).

7. Please don't be extremely cocky or arrogant. I won't vote against you for this, but I will give you lower speaks.

8. With some exception, I use speaks as a way to gauge your ability as a debater. It doesn’t matter how pretty you talk. I give you speaks based off of how solid your argumentation is. You say something really smart that makes a lot of sense? That’s good for your speaks. You have a simple debate that you did well on in terms of the flow? That’s good for your speaks. Drop stuff in one speech and pick it up in another? That's bad for your speaks. I think using speaks to gauge pretty-talking is ableist.

9. Please don't cut your cards to make it look like they say things they don't actually say. It's a bad practice and makes for gross debates. It's basically faking evidence, which is pretty not-cool of you to do.

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

Policy Debate

I lean policymaker but please have inherency. If you’re a K aff, your advocacy should be some sort of action that can be taken. If your advocacy in a vacuum wouldn’t change anything then I’m inclined towards believing it doesn’t solve (I.e. don’t just say “I think x power structure is bad and should get the ballot for saying that.”)

I'm pretty tab and will vote on just about anything. As long as you don't say/do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, bigoted, etc., I'm probably not going to get mad at you for anything in a round.

A big thing for me is when the Aff team knows what they're talking about. The more confidently you're able to deliver your arguments, the better off you're going to be with me. This largely goes for neg as well. I'll be much more lenient on this earlier in the season though.

You probably shouldn't run kritiks or counterplans if you don't understand how they work.

For 2022-23I know nothing about the topic (assume I know the wording of the resolution and not much else), but I'll still know what all of your debate jargon means.

I don't vote on any arguments not brought up in the 2NR or 2AR, so make sure those speeches summarize why you won the round.

Good evidence is better than bad evidence; bad evidence is (sometimes) better than no evidence at all.

I pay attention to CX but don’t flow it. I understand that you likely have emotional responses to some things that get brought up in CX, but don’t get unnecessarily emotional and angry (Side Note: I know that statement/phrasing might make it seem like I’m one of those judges who comments on fem debaters doing this whenever they’re just doing cx the same way other masc debaters in the room do, but please note that I’m aware of this trend and do everything I can to avoid playing into it).

To get into specifics on different types of args:

K Affs: Go for it. I think you need to have some kind of topic link that connects your case to the topic's lit base, unless your case is a kritik of the debate space itself (super valid). If you're doing a performance, I need a trigger warning if it's going to get loud (and obviously if it contains triggering content). I think a lot of great K affs have tons of offense built into the 1AC that pre-empts framework args, so please make sure to utilize that if your case does. I don't know where I stand on the "Debate is a game" vs "Debate is about education" vs "Debate is a spot for organizing social movements" question, so I treat all of these arguments with equal weight. Don't assume that I know your specific lit base. Read your args and do whatever, but I *will* prioritize the safety and mental health (note: Not to be confused with *comfort*) of everyone in the room over you reading your argument.

Theory: If it’s dropped I’ll vote for it. Can’t be too specific here without knowing what you want to run. Never had many of these debates myself. The exception to this is ASpec, which I ran all the time. That being said, ask them to spec in CX if you’re going to run a spec arg. If they don’t spec something that meets your interp, THEN you run your arg.

T: I get it. It’s a thing you always run. It’s a BS time suck in most rounds that you kick in the 2NC. But please run it well. Have all the standard pieces. For the Aff, I don’t think you need a full-fledged response time T every time. Did the neg read your counter-interp as their T interp? Articulate the hell out of a we-meet and you’re good for me. Neg, if they do this and they’re wrong, wreck them on it. You can run an RVI in front of me, but the negonly has to respond with any sort of substance and I won't vote for it (literally just don't drop it). Also please impact out your standards. Ask for caselists, provide TVAs, and articulate what this means for debate. I default to competing interps barring anything wild (The USFG is not the United States Farmer’s Guild).

CP: Don’t go for more than 1 in the 2NR. I mostly ran Dispo as a way to avoid the condo debate, but you gotta know what Dispo means if you’re doing that. I likely won’t vote on Condo if they go for the CP if there’s only 1 or 2 Counterplans in the 1NC. I could be persuaded to change this stance. Advantage CPs are cool I guess, but like they feel pretty boring and out of left field unless you argue them well. It’s pretty spicy when you can have a “Even if we kick the advantage CP, the thing it solves for is still an internal link takeout for the advantage” type thing. Agent CPs are valid and pretty great with an accompanying DA. I don’t default to sufficiency framing without you telling me to. Please for the love of debate make a presumption flips Aff arg in the 2AC/1AR.

DA: Good. Spicy. Basic debate. 2NC Case turn impact extensions are spicier. Terminal impacts are fine but also open up the debate to a bunch of BS like Spark and such. I prefer warming impacts to nuke war because the probability debate becomes a lot more evidenced, but if you got good war ev then run it. Also please don’t make me vote on Climate Change doesn’t exist. I will if I have to, but lower speaks for you bc of it.

K: I’ve read Cap, D&G, Puar, and Set Col. I’m also now getting into ableism. If the other team does something explicitly bigoted in round and you wanna make an arg on it I don’t need an Alt, so you don’t need to pull out a K. If they use ableist language, I don’t care if you’re a person with a disability or not, just say “They said ____, which is an ableist slur” (preferably a card here). “Vote them down to reject ableism”. That isn’t saviorism, that’s being ethical. Rejection is a valid Alt. Floating piks are gross but allowable. It’s pretty sus if the 2N takes the K but not the Alt and the 1NR takes the Alt to avoid CX.

Case Debate: Have a solvency advocate. Have actual Inherency please. Have a plan that fixes a problem that’s topical, or have an advocacy statement that addresses a problem with some connection to the topic. Terminal solvency deficits exist, but the bar is high. That being said, a great 2NR on solvency says “even if you don’t buy the terminal solvency deficit, every reduction in solvency gives more weight to the impacts of the DA.”

Impact Calc: Maybe I’m a bit unique in this perspective, but the aff’s job is to prove they make the world better. I don’t care if Aff wins twenty extinction scenarios if the neg wins one, because then extinction happens both ways and the Aff hasn’t met that burden, so I vote neg on presumption. Again, make a presumption flips Aff arg if there’s a CP. I also consider args about things like structural violence in the case of like “Well if we all die to nuke war either way, at least there’s less structural violence up until that point.” I’m good with framing args. I’m sick of hearing the Bostrum or Piatelli cards read without explanation of what they mean (2AC overview is a great place for this). Please show me you understand your framing args beyond the tag.

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

Value-Criterion LD Debate

1. Agree beforehand that you're having (or not having) a value-criterion debate if your circuit doesn't always do that.

2. My experience with this debate format is limited. I understand the basic idea of how cases are constructed, but I didn't do Value-Criterion debate long enough to see a wide range of case styles. I mostly ran Util/consequentialism or social contract (Yeah I basically forced it to be a policy round, I didn't say I was good lol). My limited experience means I don't have anything super substantive to say that's specific to this format of debate. I'll say that I'll be forgiving towards the aff in terms of speaks because I feel like speech times skew things more towards the neg in this format.

3. If everyone in the round is okay with it, spreading is totally fine by me. I think it helps remedy some of the time issues previously mentioned as long as it's a technique accessible to everyone. That being said, don't go more than 1.5x the fastest your opponent has gone in the round (with the obvious exception of the AC. Do what you need to to get through the speech in time).

4. The NC needs to have some sort of offense against the affirmative as well as presenting your own value and criterion (unless you're being bold and not reading your own VC in favor of directly refuting that the aff is a good idea under their own framework). I won multiple rounds across the few tournaments by starting the AR with "They didn't contest any part of the aff except the value and criterion, so if I win that you prefer my VC you vote aff.

5. I pay attention to CX but don’t flow it. I understand that you likely have emotional responses to some things that get brought up in CX, but don’t get unnecessarily emotional and angry (Side Note: I know that statement/phrasing might make it seem like I’m one of those judges who comments on fem debaters doing this whenever they’re just doing cx the same way other masc debaters in the room do, but please note that I’m aware of this trend and do everything I can to avoid playing into it).

6. The last speech for both sides should make it clear why you won the round. If it isn't brought up in your last speech then it isn't getting voted on.

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

If you have any more questions, feel free to email me at andrewflory01@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Ana you can call me Banana if you'd like.

I'm currently 3rd year debater at Lansing High School

if the tournament allows it i would like to be on the email chain - anag.debate@gmail.com

If you have any questions you can email me at this email ^^^^^

if you are using a flash i would like them as well

I usually email comments unless its not allowed at the tournament

To start off

- If you're being an ass expect me to be a B. Debate is a fun learning environment don't ruin that.

- If you are being Homophobic, Racist, Sexist, or offensive in anyway expect a 0 spks.

- i'm comfortable with speed as long as you make it clear when you're going on to a new page and new tags. Novi should NOT spread IMO cause as 1st years people are still getting used to the environment of debate.

- i'm sorry but if you look like u just rolled out of bed i always have an extra brush you may use after the round. Don't be offended if i giggle please its not personal i promise.

Ks

- don't read it if you don't understand it!

- make sure that you explain the entirety of the K

- i'm not super familiar with different Ks because i personally don't run them but just make sure that you explain them please. Just reading a poem and a card doesn't tell me anything.

K Affs

If you read a K Aff make sure you explain it and let me know what it says especially if its a weird one. I like clash so make sure you explain how it relates to the topic of the year in some way. If you are Open or Novi PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to your coach about how to answer framework! i really like seeing people knowing what they are talking about.

Counterplans/DAs/Turns/T

-I dont really care what you run aslong as you have specific links and stuff that clashes with the AFF case.

-If its a small AFF run T. I vote on T if its done right so make sure that you have your interp, Grounds, Limits, Violation, and Voters. To answer T make sure that you either say that "We meet their def" and explain how, or have a counter def.

-With turns make sure that you are explaining how they cause their own impx.

Case

ALWAYS hit on case! roast TF out the case without being a dick please, hit the stocks especially (SHITS- Solvency, Harms, Inherency, T, Significance) if the AFF cant solve then ofc im gonna lean to Neg cause it be like that sometimes bro. If you dont hit on case then youre telling me that the plan can still solve for all the things they claim even though in ur DAs say they can cause extinction or whatever you run.

Baylor University '25 (not debating)

Lansing SR '21 - debated in DCI and TOC varsity (in-state and out) and KDC - stuck primarily to policy debate and public forum

add me to the email chain: chloe.kautt.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Basic Preferences

-I'll ask before the round starts, but I would appreciate it if everyone disclosed their pronouns

-I can handle any speed you are comfortable with it, but I haven't debated for about a year so do with that what you will, but I'll clear you if I can no longer understand

-If you have a question, ask before the round not when you are about to give your speech

-Don't be an ass, debate is a fun activity and we are all here to learn don't let your crappy attitude get in the way of anyone's learning experience

-Read any racist, sexist, homophobic, or any offensive argument in front of me and expect to lose the round and get 0 speaks. I've had someone impact turn queer theory and the past and it didn't go well for them.

-I'm pretty expressive about different arguments so if you see a head nod while I'm flowing, I guess you're doing something good

-I'm not a typical stock issues judge or a "policymaker", you should tell me what I should vote on. I go on a defense vs offense scale. Both teams should have offense. Aff - throw in a link turn or two on the disad or turns arguments on the counterplan, or a good impact turn and GO FOR THEM! Neg - same. Go for impact turns and turns case arguments on the disad. Your one answer to case as "Warming isn't an issue" definitely won't do you any good if they answer it or if there is a broad spill-up claim (same for you aff).

Theory

-Condo is fine as long as you don't read an egregious number of counter plans

-Dispo is weird so I wouldn't do it tbh

-You need an impact to theory and proof of in round abuse

-Most likely, it will be a reason to reject the argument, not the team unless there is substantial abuse that would make it impossible for you to win a round (rare)

Topicality

We stand a good T debate, but there are a few things to consider:

-I'll default to competing interps. You should do analysis on the impacts you have. Don't just give me "FAiRneSs and EdUcaTion aRe ImpActs" explain to me why they are

-*NOVICES*- Start adding standards into your T shells, reading an interpretation and a violation won't cut it as a voting issue - if you don't read standards or don't extend them I won't vote on it

-Pointing out in round abuse is FIRE! Please do it!

-If you read offense on T such as overlimiting or underlimiting good, I'll love you forever

Disads

-I like specific links I don't know who doesn't

-PLEASE have warranted internal link chains that make sense

-Run any disad you want (linear, politics, etc) I don't care

-You should be extending each piece of the disad otherwise you won't get access to different arguments

Counter Plans

-I'll go with Jamie Welch on this one. DON'T SAY CP SAY COUNTERPLAN!

-I don't like PICS that much, but I've run them so don't think you can't run one in front of me- you should block out answers to PICS bad though

-the better the solvency advocate, the better the counterplan

-If your only answer to "perm do both" is that it links to the disad, probably holding it to a high threshold

-PLEASE READ OFFENSE ON COUNTERPLANS- aff make the neg have to defend every single portion of the counterplan

K

-I've run them and I've gone for them. Feel free to read anything but Nietzche and Baudrillard. I am the most familiar with neolib, fem, settler colonialism, and militarism. If you plan on reading one in front of me that isn't those, please be sure to explain it.

-You should have specific links, that's always a good thing.

-Links of omission are bad and uneducational, please block out specific links to the affirmative

-You can have an alt or you can go for the linear DA, whatever you think the best strat is, go for it

-If you are going for the alt, you must explain how the alternative is able to solve for every link you read and why its key to access your impact.

-Be prepared to answer the framework debate please!

K affs

Like I said before, I don't care what you read in front of me. I would prefer if you read one with some residual link to the topic. If your aff has literally no link what so ever to the topic, probably gonna lean more on neg for framework. Please be prepared to answer framework. I've read a K aff before so I know what's up.

For framework, you need to explain to me what the impacts are. Fairness to me is an internal link to clash and education, but if you think it is a legitimate impact go for it.

If you plan on reading one in open, please talk to your coach about framework, the last things I want to see is you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. If you read a K aff in open for clout, you are doing more harm for the group you are talking about. Doing it for a ballot is not the best way to debate. That being said, if it is a strange K aff explain it, but I'm open to many types of literature including the ones mentioned in the "K" section

LD

For the sake of clarity, I am somewhat familiar with the value/criterion style of this debate, but offense/defense is easier for me to follow (everything above applies)

Hello, I am Stephen Kautt, I am a traditional debater, but I vote tech over truth. If you drop an argument you lose that argument, make sure you extend everything. This is my 4th year debating at Lansing High School. I do know some technical arguments in debate, also I love clash, if there is no clash, the debate is just boring.

If you are doing an email chain, my email is: stephen.kautt.lansing@gmail.com

TLDR: Debate the way you want to, but make sure you signpost, extend, and are clear, so that I can make sure I flow the round properly, if you are not clear, I may lose arguments you read, and I am voting off my flow. I also have a high threshold for new arguments in the rebuttals, you can read new evidence (even though you really should not unless you absolutely need to), but do not read new arguments. I also read evidence, but if your evidence does not make the claim you said, I will not vote you down unless the other team brings it up. I will just mention it on the ballot.

Speed

I can handle fast speeds, I speak fast myself, but I do take clarity over speed, so if you just sound like you are mumbling, I will deduct speaks.

Topicality

I like topicality, but do not make topicality the focus of the debate, do not make it the one thing you go for, unless it makes sense, I will vote on T if the aff does not do a good job answering the parts of T, also make sure you extend your counter interpretation standards, and the impact of the T.

Disads

I have ran disads a ton, so I know whats going on. Make sure when you run a disad, I buy the link chain, I do not want some stupid link chain to make me believe that the Aff leads to your impact. I will vote on generic links, but I prefer specific links, I will read evidence. Also make sure you extend your link, impact, and internal link. Just extend and make me buy the argument. If the Aff is able to make me believe there is no link or there is no impact, then I will flow the disad to the aff.

Counterplans

I have ran counterplans a ton, so I know what's going on. Make sure the counterplan is able to solve the aff, make sure the cp has a net benefit, if you lose the net benefit you lose the cp. I also love perms, read a lot of them but do not forget to extend them, or answer them on the neg.

Kritik

I know what ks are, and i do not mine hearing. I am the most comfortable with setcol and cap. Be careful though, i am especially attentive when it comes to framework. And be careful, I am attentive, I will hear if you make the debate space unsafe on the topic of race or gender. If it does not make sense, I will not vote for it. Explain your k and the world of the alternative.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoy debate, I am excited to hear everyone debate, just listen to what I said above, and listen and have fun. Debate is all about having fun.

Cant wait to judge you,

Stephen

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021– current)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

Affiliations/Experience

Mill Valley High School third year debater.

Basic Round Preferences

If tournament legal, add me to the email chain- lehanjoh000@usd232.org

Phones are acceptable timers.

Big Picture

- I vote based on substance over performance, but performance may be necessary to convey your substance. Tech and truth are equally valid; win why your argument matters more.

-I believe in equal access to all arguments for all debaters; any debater can run any argument, no matter their background. Diversity based arguments need to have substance and win why that argument wins the round.

Form

-Performance helps convey your substance. The argument is only as good as its speaker. Speak well enough to convey your point and I will consider it in my RFD. Exceptional performances will win my speaker points.

- If I have the evidence in front of me, I can likely keep up with any speed. However, if speed sacrifices annunciation, you risk your analysis being lost. Speed doesn't make you cool, it gives you more time for analysis, so speak clearly first and quickly second.

- Understand your evidence, and link it to your arguments and your opponents. I likely understand your evidence and can guess at your point, but analysis on how evidence affects the round as a whole makes it infinitely more important to my ballot.

- Respect your opponents. Even bad arguments warrant an explanation of why they're bad. Debating isn't easy, so don't make it miserable for your opponents. Go for the win, but make debating positive for both sides.

- 2NR/2AR are the most important speeches. I vote based on the content of these speeches; I won't vote on something you didn't revisit. Frame the round, encompass opponent arguments, and connect your evidence. Give me a reason to vote for you.

- Use your speech time effectively. You should be able to fill speech time, but if you can't, don't drag on forever just to hear the sound of your own voice. Don't give your opponents extra prep time just to repeat points.

Function

- Topicality used as a legitimate shield will not struggle to win my ballot, provided it is argued fully. This also means it's not a reverse voting issue; drop T at any time. Topicality used against a potentially topical aff can still win my ballot, but the argument needs to be both complete and specific, with in-depth analysis that reflects an understanding of T.

- Kritiks and K-Affs avoid the main topic. I won't be as familiar with all the nuances of the argument, so proper explanation will be required. Additionally, framework should be utilized to explain why your argument outweighs arguing about the topic.

- Generic DAs are fine, but must be linked to the specific affirmative plan. This doesn't mean you necessarily need a case specific link card, although that will help, but like every other piece of evidence you read, explain how the Generic DA applies to this specific plan.

- Unanswered framework, if extended properly, will win my ballot. Framework tells me exactly how to vote, so ignoring it means you agreed I should vote for the other team. Just reading a framework card isn't running framework, analysis is required as to how your case fits within your framework and the opponent's does not, as well as why that framework is good for debate.

- Arguments about how debate ought to function should evenly split grounds. Unlike other arguments in debate, theory doesn't deny everything the opponent says, it allows for an even round.

- Analytics are valid arguments. Evidence with good credentials will likely outweigh analytics, but teams must still explain why analytics shouldn't be weighed in a round.

- A strong aff plan should hold up under multiple points of scrutiny. Conditionality is acceptable, although conditional counterplans are a legitimate point of debate.

- Both teams should have offense. Give me a reason you should win, not just why your opponents will lose.

Blue Valley West Assistant Debate Coach

Email chain: tanmansmith5@gmail.com

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

Big Picture:

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

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

Delivery:

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

Framing:

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

DAs:

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

CPs:

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

T:

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

K/K Affs:

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

Random Notes:

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

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

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

hello, i’m a student at Saint Louis University majoring in social work with two minors in political science and women and gender studies. i use she/her pronouns. i competed in policy for four years in high school. i’m pretty tabula rasa when it comes to judging. i will not tolerate any bigoted, discriminatory, or violent arguments + behaviors.

speed
speed is okay but if you are going to spread please be courteous and let me + your opponents know ahead of time. with that being said, if a team asks for you not to spread please make the accommodation, or else i might reconsider your speaks. slow down on authors & tags if you do spread.

topicality

i will vote based on the team w/ the best voters. aff, provide a we-meet and counter interpretation. evidence comparison and impact calc are extremely important here. not a huge fan of using t as a time suck that gets kicked in the 2nc.

k

i’m open to listening to any k’s including language, performance, and narrative. for the most part, i’m into feminism, anti-capitalist, social & environmental justice theory args, but do not run these just to run them. please know your lit and explain the k’s relation to the aff. i like hearing about the alt’s impact more than anything, but that might just be me lol.

cp

explain to me how the CP competes with the aff’s plan. i have no preference on kicking CPs or running condo CPs & i am all ears if you bring up theory in response to those types of strats. please have a clear net benefit.

da

pretty simple here. the more specific your link is the better, but generic links & da’s work just as fine. i think da’s are fun with cp’s too.

impact calc

extremely important to be weighing your args, especially in the 1ar. i need to know why your impacts outweigh your opponents…or else i’m left with making decisions that may not be in your favor.

misc

please give a roadmap & signpost

extendddd your arguments

warrants>

clash is always good

make FULL arguments

i will not be flowing cx so if you want to make an argument about something that happened in it, bring it up in the following constructive.

do not clip evidence or i will vote against you

tag-teaming and open cx is fine if the tournament allows & if your opponents are okay with it, but i will not flow anything your partner says

new in the 2 is fine as long as the new ev isn’t being spread

don’t worry about eye contact that much with me…it can feel a little awkward on my part.

Lansing High School '21

University of Kansas '25 (not debating)

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

Pronouns: she/her

top level

Do your thing. I'll try to resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible. I'd rather you read something you enjoy reading, I'll do my best to adapt to what arguments you read.

I’ve done limited research on this topic and have only judged a few rounds this season.

If anything on my paradigm isn't clear or your have questions - feel free to ask me before round or shoot me an email

Planless affs:

I'm best at adjudicating and giving constructive feedback in debates with policy affs because that's where most of my experience as a debater was, but I enjoy watching and evaluating planless affs.

Make sure you're explaining the literature/process that your aff takes

Being in the direction of the topic is important

Framework - 2nc/2nr's should interact with the aff at some level, ie. don't just read generic uncontextualized t-usfg blocks. Give a detailed explanation as to why the specific model/aff is worse for debate. Most debates that don't contextualize framework arguments to the aff end up sounding like "K affs are bad for debate", which is a strat you can go for but it's much easier to win with specific offense and more difficult to convince me that any and all planless affs are bad for debate.

Fairness and education can both be impacts (unless argued otherwise), but I personally think fairness is argued best as an i/l to education

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations

TVA's are good to help explain impacts and help contextualize what offense you lose under the aff's model

Slow down a little bit on analytics

Disads

Da/cp debates are usually pretty fun and probably my favorite to watch

Specific links>topic links

Not much to say here

Counterplans:

Default condo is good, but can be convinced otherwise

Process cp's are fine, but I eer aff on theory

I default to judge kick

Condo is the only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team

2a's - please utilize going for theory more, negative teams can be pretty abusive when it comes to fiat - even if you don't end up going for it, having it in your arsenal is good practice and might save you from losing to a random process cp one day

Kritics:

Assume I don't know your lit, make sure you are explaining your ev and contextualizing it to the topic/aff

Not the best judge for kvk debates, very limited experience here

Line by line>long overviews

Other:

Judge instruction is important - your 2nr/2ar should outline what you want the decision on my ballot to look like

Be kind to everyone in the round! Debate is a fun and educational outlet for people - don't make me intervene because you've made someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe in the debate space.

Experience:

I debated for 3 years at Lansing High School (Education, Immigration, Arms Sales). I do not have college debate experience.

This tournament (CFL) is my first experience judging the 2020-21 topic.

t/l:

pronouns: he/him

Add me to the email chain: wstrickland.debate@gmail.com

If you have any questions about the debate after it happens, you can email me at the above.

I'm flowing on paper - slow down for tags and make sure the content of cards is at a pace where it's not complete gibberish.

i am a STRONG believer that: just because you read a card doesn't mean your opponent's analytics can't beat it

i should never hear only "they didn't have ev so we win x argument". If you're saying this, it means they made an argument and your response is "we have ev and they don't". What this translates to on paper is an extension of your tag with no warrants. I want to be able to flow your warrants.

i don't want to hear new arguments in the 2nr or 2ar. i'll flow them just in case i'm wrong in the moment about hearing them earlier, but that doesn't mean i'll listen to them.

presumption goes neg UNLESS the neg is running a counterplan without a judge kick argument

as for types of arguments:

I was a 2a for nearly all my debates - 1nr was typically a disad or t, so I'm most experienced with those

Theory:

i won't discourage any specific type of theory because I don't have any solid, in-depth thoughts on it at the moment

disclosure is good.

know that, as i said above, i was a 2a the large majority of debates. I have gone for condo 0 times in 3 years. That said, neg teams, don't get excessive.

T:

competing interpretations > reasonability

depth > breadth

limits control ground

fairness is an i/l to education. if you're not trying to win fairness, you'll have a very hard time telling me educational debates not related to the topic o/w fair AND educational debates related to the topic.

i like predictability. having the most predictable interp is strong in front of me

i've been told that people now think not having voters in the 1nc is cool. i think it is. put voters in the 1nc.

DAs:

specific link > generic link

impact calc: have it, please. as much as i wish i could, i can't give you thresholds at which magnitude o/w probability or probability o/w timeframe. this is up to you to decide. i don't know if this is a thing that happens still, but winning the yes nuclear war vs their no nuclear war evidence does not mean you get a 100% chance of probability. If you're on the opposite side of this situation, i'd love to hear something about how link chains reduce probability.

CPs:

i dislike topical counterplans

i default to sufficiency framing

i don't know how you can have any other reasonable approach than this, but feel free to enlighten me

Ks/K affs:

I have minimal experience running Ks, so you probably don't want to run one in front of me. If you want or have to, I'm most experienced with cap/neolib.

I'm heavily inclined towards the affirmative having a plan, and it will probably be easier to win this in front of me on average than another judge.

I am a 4th-year debater from Piper High School

Send me your case. My email is elizabethvaughan@piperschools.us I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused, and generally just make me happier. (Please and thank you!)

I'm not going to keep time so, you probably should.

Arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

Signpost please It helps me so much to know what you're running before you talk about it.

Also! please explain your arguments well. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, even if you think I might know already.

Stock Issues are the most important aspect for me. If the affirmative can win all of their stock issues they'll probably win the round unless the negative team brings up impact calc.

I Flow the round. But it's still important for you to emphasize if the other team dropped something from the flow (otherwise, I might forget!)

I really just want you to explain your arguments well and sound like you know what you're talking about. Especially in novice debate, I fully believe confidence is key. You got this!

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

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality -

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

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

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

Critical Affs –

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

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

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

Disads -

Not much to say here...

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

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

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

Counterplans –

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

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

Kritiks –

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

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

Case -

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

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

Debated 4 years at Lansing High School on the National Circuit

Email: brettzimm4@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Firstly:

I was mostly a policy debater in high school and that is what I am most comfortable with. However, I do have some limited experience reading kritiks, on the aff and neg, so read what you need to read to win the debate. Tech over Truth.

Topicality:

I think topicality is really under utilized and gets a bad name sometimes because generic interpretations can feel disingenuous. That being said I don't have a problem with generic interps, but perhaps the threshold for the neg to win that part of the debate is lower if they read a contextual interp.

Limits over ground

I think debating impacts is super important in T debates and in order to win the argument you should explain to me what your impact looks like and why it outweighs, in a very thorough way.

Disads:

Disad debates are great. Do what you want here.

A specific link goes a long way.

I think straight turns are cool.

Counterplans:

Read whatever kind of counterplan you want to read, process counterplans, PICs, etc. you just have to win the theory debate.

Condo debates are fun and I encourage the aff to start them if they think its justified.

Kritiks:

Specific links over generic ones

The aff gets to weigh their impacts

I have experience with a few kritiks and I've read some books, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I know what I'm talking about when it comes to kritiks. Explain the link, impact, and alt in detail and if you think I might be confused, more explanation on any part of the flow is always good.

Case:

Neg teams should use it, like really use it, you could even garner some offense off of it if you're feeling up to it. Just don't ignore it, especially in the rebuttals.

K affs:

I read one for a while my senior year and it was great, but obviously all k affs are different so I need you to explain how the k interacts with the resolution. I understand that K debate is meant to be complex in some ways but at the end of the day if I can't understand your argument it's really hard for me to vote for it.

I think garnering offense off what the neg reads is very persuasive and smart.

v K affs:

FW: This is a strategy I am very familiar with, but it is important for you to contextualize the argument you go for on the fw page to the aff so that I know what voting negative looks like. I think that contextualization starts in the 1NC.

Kritiks: Read them if you want, they're a good way to test the aff and get some offense on the flows.

CPs: I've always found these to be a stretch and very incompatible with the aff. You should read one if you have it, just know that you'll have to do a lot of work.

"Learn lots, have fun." - Sean Duff