Hello! 

For my background - I debated four years in Kansas on the varsity circuit. I also debated for KU at a couple tournaments, but haven't forayed much into collegiate debate beyond that.

I'm pretty clean slate - I'd like to hear what you have to say, and will evaluate it if you tell me why it's important. That's really all it comes down to for me. 

Speed - it's fine, please be clear though. I flow on paper so I need time to write stuff down on theory arguments and stuff. 

T - my threshhold is kind of high for this, honestly? I do think it's important for critical affirmatives to articulate the relationship they have to the resolution, and doing so (even just in CX) will help. On FW debates, I'd love to hear methodological debates about why the argument is important and how it engages different avenues of social change. 

Other K stuff - I'm here for it! I really will evaluate whatever if it is explained clearly and seems significant. Let me stress though that I need to understand what is going on for me to vote on it - explain jargon and contextualize it to the round, especially if you're running something niche or postmodern or something? 

Also I love to be entertained!!! and engaged as a judge. love performance-heavy things. doesn't mean i'll immediately vote on it but still i'd love to see it?? lol thx for reading bbz

My email is glanzman94@gmail.com ------please include me in the email chain if present. I do prefer speechdrop though.

Experience/Accolades:

NFA-LD National Champion (2016)

NPDA/NPTE Top 8 (2016)

CEDA Double Octo-Finalist (2014)

Coach in High School Policy for 6 years

Coach for NFA-LD for 2 years

***Updated for NFA 2022***

We are back in person!! I have attended two tournaments nationally to get back into the swing of in-person debate and I believe the differences I have seen warrants me making changes to my paradigm. For some students this may be your first in person experience debating (whether that be high school or college) and I need to make it clear that certain debate practices and models do not translate well to in-person debate and causes me headaches when evaluating a winner. So I will attempt to pinpoint things I find make it difficult to judge while also providing a view for how I engage with debates.

1. Run strategies you understand and are comfortable with---do not let your peers or coaches tell you otherwise. I’ve found it incredibly disheartening that every year I go into judging and students run K’s or soft left stuff in front of me because they believe that’s all I can evaluate. It’s not true. Yes I can provide better feedback with K’s compared to a politics DA but I also evaluate every debate through offense/defense and how to frame it. So please stop running things you can’t explain beyond the surface level just because you think I like it.

2. Debate is about clash, and clash is much more than just saying “they said x argument”. Seriously I’ve judged too many debates this year where teams are just missing the point of clash and it’s annoying. Remember, comparison is necessary. Comparison happens when you provide actual warrants for your argument and then contextualize it to the debate (which means your opponent’s arguments). This means tagline extensions are not enough. This means being more predictive rather than descriptive in context to arguments clashing. Things like how your alternative solves the impacts of the aff. Or how regional conflict supercharges famine. Or how winning the epistemology framing means that you internal link turn their warming scenario or whatever. Point is---compare and contrast! Don’t just do normal impact calc that’s self-referential. Ask yourself constantly “how does this happen”/”why does this matter” and make sure you answer it.

3. Overprepping is a real thing, and reading blocks as fast as you can isn’t debate. Like for real if you go into debates just reading pre-written analytics and cards only there is no reason for *you* to be present in the debate. If at the end of your speech you ask yourself “if somebody else read my document, would the debate change in any meaningful way?” and you conclude no; you have done yourself a disservice. I get it---prep is great. But overprepping or losing yourself in fast responses creates worse debate across the board. Mainly because clash isn’t very organic. Or in most cases you ignore important arguments on the flow because it didn’t make it into your blocks. Just please…generate analytics specific to this debate. Allocate time to prove you have generated thought into how you want to approach this debate.

4. Just because you read a piece of evidence does not mean I will extrapolate its warrants and apply it to the debate unless absolutely necessary. Debate is a competition between you and your opponents. I try not to interject as much as I possibly can and leave it up to what said in a debate to filter a decision. Even if your evidence has a round winning warrant---if you don’t explain and extend it, I won’t consider it. In really close rounds that reference pieces of evidence, this changes because I naturally have to look into it. But it’s not good enough to say “extend my Zizek evidence. Cold conceded” and move on then blow me up during the RFD saying “but Zizek said this line”. That’s cool, but you didn’t after the 1AC/1NC or whatever. This is why I prefer debaters who read *less* evidence after the 1AC/1NC and focus on just explaining and contextualizing what was in their original shells. Your shells should already contain 95 percent of what you need to win. Pre-emptions and all.

5. Stop assuming the way you view debate is the way I view debate. That’s the purpose of a paradigm right? You see what I’m weak at and how I evaluate arguments. I’ve noticed this year especially teams take certain endpoints for granted. Like why competitive equity/education matters. Or why stock issues are a voter. Or why economic collapse is bad. These re-address the point I made about by asking yourself “how did this happen/why does it matter?” I am flexible at how I should vote---y’all tell me how I should evaluate the round. But you gotta give me tangible reasons why your model is good and why not following it is bad. Don’t just assume.

6. I tend not to look at speakers when they are presenting, so if I do it probably means I am looking for you to explain further/contextualize. Pay attention to my body language. Especially coming off of two years judging online, I haven’t adapted too well to making my body language neutral. Either way, never was that kind of judge. I have certain ticks. Doesn’t mean that I hate what you’re saying necessarily---probably just means I’m looking for more or think you need to move on.

7. I err tech over truth, but capital T truth will be persuasive no matter what. That’s kind of the purpose of debate, yeah? Multiple sides to multiple arguments? Kinda hard to find objectivity behind all that subjectivity so it always benefits you to focus more on the internals of it. I will say though that the way that I flow and evaluate does tend to allow for more “embedded clash” than others. And what I mean by that is that certain debaters just have that gift for knowing what matters in a debate and what doesn’t. If the endpoint of an argument you make inherently clashes and out-warrants the endpoint of your opponent’s argument; it’s not necessary in certain cases to pinpoint it on the flow and flag it. Best piece of advice I’ve ever received---you’re never winning every argument. So focus on what would win you the ballot. Not just prove you’re better at arguing.

8. Presumption can be a round winner in front of me if packaged correctly. If you are winning credible defense and they just aren’t really touching on it by saying “that’s defense so who cares?” and they don’t actively explain their scenarios then yes presumption is p cool. I do expect affs and negs to adequately extend their advantages/shells even if they weren’t addressed. So just keep that in mind.

9. I am not very strong at counterplan debates, so be weary. Doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate the usual ones like agent CPs, etc. But process CPs tend to go over my head. Either way, 95 percent of the time CPs only matter because of the net benefit that is rarely internal but rather a DA that can stand on its own. You should naturally be winning the DA for the CP to matter. But that statement probably proves my conception of CP debate is bad. I love PICs though!

10. I love cheese. So anybody that brings me cheese, or cheese flavored snacks automatically gets a 29 worst case from me. Better snacks increase it. Or a drink to pair it with increase it.

So now to answer questions people like to ask:

1. Can I run a K aff? Yes. I would say that 3 out of my 4 years were me running K affs exclusively minus maybe 4 parli rounds and having to run a policy in front of NFA judges who I know can’t evaluate it well. Run it well and try to contextualize it to the neg as much as possible. Don’t get lost in blocks or generalities.

2. Do I have to have a plan? Nah. I’m not KU and saying “no plan no wins no speaks”. You don’t have to do anything in front of me to curry favor other than debate in a way strongest to you.

3. What about performance? Go for it. I did performance for 2 years of my career and had a lot of success with it. I naturally view every speech act as a performance so it’s not a thing for me to be weary about re-evaluating spaces/poetry/music/silence/narrative/whatever right? The debate is always yours in front of me. I’m just here to determine the ballot.

4. Will you vote on framework? Yes. So far voted more for it than against it. I think framework debaters tend to focus too much on prepped blocks though. Be more organic and really engage with the specifics of the 1AC/1NC instead of just generalizing it to “they say anti-blackness” or whatever. You should also be prioritizing the internal links of your framework shells. Things like clash, switch side, preparation, resolutional stasis, etc. only matter if you contextualize it to the specifics of the 1AC. Like it’s not just good enough to tell me why balanced clash is good. You have to not only justify why your model of debate is good, but preferable to the affs model.

5. Will you vote on T? Yes. It’s how I won NFA. And I actually think T can be read against policy affs. Even if there is some ground/offense baked into their relation to the topic (sorry Lincoln Garrett, your take was kinda silly lol). Point is, topic is important yeah? You can debate it isn’t important. And you can win that debate. But by default, I tend to believe the topic matters in some fashion. T debaters have a horrible tendency to focus on top level though compared to internals. This mirrors the framework arguments I painted above since T and Framework are essentially the same thing (yes they are, interpretations are models for how the community should engage a word/phrase. Framework just makes more meta arguments about the generalities of debate). Talk about specifics, not generalities. Be predictive about what they justify and how that worsens debate. And why that matters. Just please explain stuff…even if you win the interp and violation debate doesn’t mean it’s an automatic vote.

6. What about the K? Yeah run it if you actually know how to explain your arguments and use it strategically. Too many times I get students in front of me who get jazzed saying capitalism is bad and get caught up trying to correctly historicize China or Cuba because they know factoids compared to focusing on the strategy and overall purpose of the debate. K’s were my bread and butter and naturally I can provide the best feedback for it. But that is double-edged---it means I demand more from you in context to how you deploy and debate it. Also, very important note. Please explain your methodology instead of just saying cool leftist things. And I mean it. Your alternative evidence should be pointing out an actual method/praxis/starting point. Your alternative text should be written with meaning where every word is necessary. Too often students don’t really know what the alternative specifically means and just say things they’ve heard in other K rounds like “epistemic disobedience” or “guerilla tactics” or “flipping the script” without actually relating that back to the alternative evidence/text proper. Alternatives are varied and vast for a reason. Real differences between historical materialism and critical pedagogy on the *methodological* level. Point is---please explain your alt. Explain it correctly. Utilize it efficiently so that it solves the aff and your K proper.

7. How about impact turns? Yeah but obvi don’t read racism or patriarchy good. Not a fan of Malthus. De-dev is my jam. Wipeout is cool too.

8. Will you vote on theory? Yes, but just like the T and Framework stuff you need to explain the internals and impact theory out effectively. I don’t have any pre-disposition to any theory position that makes a certain side preferable to me than others. For instance on condo I honestly couldn’t care less because I think both sides have good reasons and am not a 50 year old coach who believes condo makes or breaks good debate. It’s up for debate!! Debate is up for debate!! And you win it by winning the debate!! What I will say is that I’d rather see 1-3 offcases with development out of the 1NC compared to 6-10 with little development. I enjoy more in depth debate but again I don’t intervene in this situation and it’s not gonna be persuasive for you to just say “hey you said you like depth!”.

Any other questions just ask. Happy debating!!

lukehartman3@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was previously an assistant coach at Blue Valley North (2014-2018 and 2021-2022), a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute (2018), and an assistant coach at Peninsula (2019-2021). I am now a patent lawyer based in Austin.

General Comments:

• I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
• I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
• Logic > tech > truth
• I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments, not the other way around.
• The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
• I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
• I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Debates judged (current topic): 0

Debates judged (career): 337

University of Kansas Class of 2019
Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North High School.

Surveillance: I have judged 10 rounds on this topic.
Please don't use insane acronyms or expect me to understand all of the intricate parts of the topic. I will flow and understand what you tell me and explain to me.
Overview
I was mainly a policy debater in high school. I will flow all arguments and weigh all arguments based on how the debaters tell me to value them. I believe that the role of a judge is to do as little work as possible when coming to a decision. If debaters are not making clear reasons for why they should win then I won’t be persuaded and I will not pull strings for a certain team.
I think strategy and decision making are important skills. If you want to win the debate you must paint a clear picture of why you should win or why the opponent should lose.

General Specifics
Spreading- I can keep up with any speed, but it is only fine as long as you are reading tags clearly and not slurring words during the text of the card. If you aren’t reading a card clearly, I will yell clear. After that I will stop flowing if you don’t slow down.
Disclosure- I am not highly persuaded by disclosure theory, but if it is read I will evaluate it. I think that disclosure can be good, but I don’t believe in forcing norms on the debate community.
Cross-X – This is the best place to earn extra speaker points and to build a good ethos. I value cross-x very highly and believe that the best teams are those that can use three minutes to change a debate. I also HATE people who answer questions by not answering them. If you think you are clever by spiking out of answers, you will be docked speaker points.
Evidence vs Spin –Spin will always come first. I don’t want to call for evidence, but if it comes down to that usually evidence is the tiebreaker.

Argument Specifics

Case – impact calculus is paramount for the affirmative no matter what the 2nr is (the exception being T). That means that impact defense is key or “try or die” becomes persuasive. I generally give the aff some risk of winning some case solvency, but there is nothing better than a well-researched and well-prepared case strategy from the negative. Challenging all parts of the case with good evidence can put you in a great position to win. Case debate is often about detailed distinctions and it’s important to explain why those distinctions matter.


Topicality – I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded of a well-done reasonability argument. That does not mean “our aff’s pretty close”. If the 2ar puts the work in, reasonability can become an offensive argument. Limits are good, but overlimiting is bad – it’s the job of the debater to tell me who is doing what. Case lists and topical versions of the aff are always helpful.


DAs – impact calc should be the first thing I hear in the block and 2nr overviews of the DA. That also means every 2ac should have impact defense to the DA. Turns case arguments can be deadly when executed properly and a smart turns case arg is invaluable. There is no such thing as zero risk of uniqueness/link/internal link/impact unless there is a major dropped argument/piece of evidence. Otherwise, there is always a risk of the DA and everything must be contextualized. When the UQ and link debates are close, make sure to include which should be evaluated first and why.


CPs – I think that cp’s are all about strategy and ability to adapt in the debate. I am fine if the negative wants to run any type of counterplan, but I can also be persuaded by the affirmative on why certain counterplans are cheating. I ran the delay counterplan and I believe that debates come down to what arguments are made and how they are impacted. Also please do not run a counterplan without atleast one piece of evidence that says the CP can do the aff.


Ks on the neg – I generally believe that the aff should get to weight its impacts and the neg should get its alt. Given that this is my least comfortable style of argumentation, the neg must do a good job explaining the alt and giving clear overviews that compare its impact to the affirmative’s.
I am typically not persuaded by arguments that exclude the aff. If fiat is illusory and the aff can’t be weighed, this creates a bad debate which is not good to the debaters or to the judges.

I also don’t like the way negative teams explain some of the impacts to kritiks. If someone perms the kritik and you read a X DA to the perm. That DA must be impacted and explained during the time it is read. You can’t read a DA to a perm and blow it up in the 2nr. Just like a 2ac must explain the impact of an add-on to their aff.

Also if the 2nr extends an alternative, there must be at least thirty seconds of explanation on how the alt solves the impacts to the kritik and how it works.


Non-Plan Affs/Framework on the neg – I typically think that the aff ought to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan, but can be persuaded otherwise. If you win on the line by line and you win the big picture, you win.

Name: William Klausmeyer
School: Kapaun Mt. Carmel (Wichita, KS)
Experience: 3 year high school debater, 2 of those were high flow years

    1 year Wichita State University Debate

I debated 3 years in high school and was a high flow kritikal debater. I’ve debated most types of debates from straight up policy to performative and everything in between. That being said don’t assume that I know your literature base. I’m a tabula rosa judge (meaning I’ll vote for anything if it’s a warranted claim) but I default to a policy maker paradigm.

Speed – I prefer clarity over speed especially in nuanced arguments. It’s been a while since I’ve debated a high-flow round so start off slow and give me time to adjust. If I can’t understand you I’ll yell clear.

T/Theory – Give me a quality theory debate and I’ll vote for you. That said, my threshold for quality is probably higher than most. Theory was my baby in high school so if you want me to vote for you do it right. That means impacting your arguments out and explaining your arguments well. You’ll have a tough time winning the round on a blip theory argument unless its extended correctly (tell me what your argument was and why I should vote on it).

Disads – I like a specific story and a good link chain. Impact cards should be updated as well as the link cards. Don’t be making economic collapse causes war arguments from 2005 cards. That’s an easy way to lose credibility. I’ve always liked good DA turns case arguments, so if you have them use them. It’s an easy way to get more ground out of 1 argument.

Case – Case debate is vital to a good round (unless you have an AMAZING argument as to why case doesn’t matter). Good, logical arguments give you a lot of credibility. Case turns are an easy way to generate offense. At the very least you should mitigate case as best as possible.

Kritiks – I ran kritiks in high school but I by no means know the entire literature base. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about, explain your arguments well. If you don’t have an interwoven argument to take out case you need to attack it separately.

Performance – Go for it but make real arguments and be able to explain them. Know your framework and how to win it.

Go for clash and debate warrants not just tags and you’ll have a much easier time winning. This is by no means comprehensive so ask any questions you have before the round.

Contact me with any questions, hate mail, or life advice: mason5855[at]gmail[dot]com

Debated 4 years in High school in the Shawnee Mission Area on the competitive local and national circuit
Currently debating @ KU
Rounds Judged on LA topic: 30+
Rounds Judged on Oceans: 10+
Rounds Judged on Surveillance: 9

TL;DR--Read a plan, don't read a plan, play music, read hundreds of cards - *how* you debate doesn't influence my decision unless implications of your method/performance are brought up in round. I rely on framing arguments to check my intervention in the debate, but intervention is probably inevitable to some degree. You can read things like Baudrillard and Heg advantages in front of me, but I won't encourage you to do so. email me if you have any questions

*Kansas Debate*

An argument = Claim + WARRANT + Impact. A lot of debates that I judge at regional tournaments involve debaters with relatively *good* understanding of techne and argumentative theory, but are really, really shallow when articulating why an argument is true or why a certain internal link chain makes sense. If you are tag-line or shaddow extending your arguments, you should expect my decision to be increasingly subjective, especially if I have no idea what your advocacy is/does (this goes for both critical and traditional policy arguments). Make framing arguments. Make permutations. Don't re-read evidence. Explain a dropped argument beyond "they dropped this so it flows Aff/Neg".

*Old Debate*

Aff:

Talk about the topic - this isn't a rule, but I think it's meaningful. It helps you contextualize your theoretical abstractions and/or policy discussions. We pick a new one every year, and there's a lot of creativity in tying your research to a prompt that won't always be available to you in educational environments.

I've been a 1A, and will give you leeway on extensions, but there has to be 2AC substance to back it up. Important things to make sure you highlight for me are framing arguments, the description/evaluation of permutations, and a clear articulation of your advocacy, interp, or whatever it is that you're defending. I'll also let the 1AR get away with embeded clash if it can be contextualized in a clearer fashion in the 2AR. 

I will vote on a plan-flaw. I hope you've appropriately capitalized the letters in your actor names. 

T:

I generally think reasonability means that your grounding in topical literature solves most of the Neg's offense, but you need to explain what reasonability is in the 1AR at minimum, preferably in the 2AC. "Be reasonable" is as vague as "vote for the team with the best argument". I default to competing interps because that's where most of the offense gets hashed out anyways. Intent to define and Author quals are a good way to frame how i evaluate each teams standards. When impacting out T, try to contextualize your argument to the Aff's interp. The Roland/People Quit type of impacts only get you so far if both teams agree that being topical is good.

T/Framework:

I think the second half of the rez is always easier to defend than the "USfg should", but I'll evaluate your interp regardless. I'm less swayed by the traditional "switch-side debate good, state good, limits/predictability, etc" impacts, but I do enjoy the nuance of deliberative democracy, stasis, and institutional competency. You will never win that ontological and epistemological inquiries are irrelevant to policy-making in front of me unless the other team drops it. You should have a defense of why your interp facilitates a better mechanism to discuss these rather than try to frame them away from the impact debate. I think it's also important to deliniate between role-playing/fiat and institutional competency or legal education if those are the types of arguments you're going for. 

Disads:

I don't have many thoughts on the substance of these debates, but i do think perception-based links give the neg some creativity in terms of impact calc. Don't expect me to be knowledgable about the uniqueness of these - i don't read politics or traditional disads anymore and haven't invested enough time in them to keep up with the lingo.

CPs:

They need to be competitive. They need to solve some part of the aff, everything else is up to the case debate. I'm open to whatever CP you want to read as well as the theory debates behind them. Like disads, i don't read traditional CPs much and won't be familiar with your tricks, so try and highlite these in the overview or whatever part of the debate you think they apply to. Object fiat is probably cheating and pedagogically unproductive.

Kritiks:

You need a clear articulation of not just what your Alt "is", but specifically what it does. you should articulate the relationship between my endorsement of your alt and your impacts. specific links aren't a rule for me, but they'll make the 1AR sand-bagging on the perm less messy and will help you control the case/impact debate. I'm more persuaded by Aff defenses of methodology/reps/epistemology/ontology rather than theoretical objections to prioritizing those. Both teams need to analyze the relationship between the link debate and the perm debate - this is where a lot of cheap-shots are won, and substantive argument is lost. Both teams need to give me a framework that either A) positions me to evaluate arguments in a given context or B) establishes what the function/role of the ballot is or should be. Absent this, my decision will be a forced arbitration that will be whatever makes sense to me. you might love or hate that depending on which flavor of koolaid you're sipping on. 

Theory:

I'm personally not experienced in either going for theory or evaluating it. that said, i won't tell you which theory interps to read/not read. you NEED to slow down when impacting out your argument - especially in your shells and especially if i don't have access to the analytic in the speech doc. I think identifying in-round strat skews helps offset the "reject the arg not the team", but i won't promise you a win for making it.

*New Debate*

Methodology

Methodology is important and I think that having a good understanding of both yours and your opponents makes for some really great debates. It's important that you highlite the difference in scholarship-production/pedegogy between the two. I also think this both complicates and redefines the attributes of the permutation. I don't think that you can necessarily "do both", especially when it comes to performing your method. I do think you can contest the mutual-exclusivity of a competing method. A lot of method debates that I've been in come down to questions of accessibility and knowledge production, so you should have a good defense of both in the context of your argument.

Performance

i think performative contradictions in more traditional K arguments give the Aff way more leeway towards perms and link evasions. I think your performance should account for how your performance is received and interpolated, as most discourse/affect theory tends to be grounded in the speaker/audience relationship and since my decision is ultimately my interpretation of your discourse/affect regardless of your style anyways. Also the more you do to explain how the permutation should be evaluated in this kind of debate, the better. 

*Technicalities* Speed

Clarity > Speed - especially in theory/analytic debates.

Prep time

Prep time ends when the flash-drive is pulled or when the doc is saved/is being emailed. I'm not harsh about this, but please don't take 5 minutes to save your speech or pretend that you're jumping when you're actually removing analytics.

Flowing

I flow whatever is said during the speech times with a grace period if the debate warrants it.  I think it's warranted to extend a little bit if something about the debate gets personal (see thoughts on micro-aggressions), but not if you're getting to the 4 perm disads that you forgot to extend in your 1NR or reading new ev, etc.

Speaks

Speaker points are still difficult for me - my largest issue is that my expectation of what a given debate looks like will change depending on where I'm judging. at regional/Kansas tournaments, i'm likely to reward debaters with 27.8-28.8 if they engage in minimal articulation of claims + warrants + impacts, whereas my expectations of debaters at national-circuit and competitive local tournaments will be much higher to get those kinds of speaks, or higher speaks respectively. The easier you make the debate for me to evaluate, the higher your speaks will be. i tend to reward things like awareness and articulation of conceded arguments, contextualization of your arguments to the round, clear speaking, and strategic choice when picking which arguments to extend. I tend to give lower speaks for inarticulate explanations of arguments, generic blocks that don't speak to the context of arguments made in the debate, rude behavior, and tooling your partner.

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.