I like arguments based in concrete examples and sound logic. Competitor understandability is very important to me. Stay away from kritiks and highly technical debate jargon. Win with clear, sound ideas related to the topic at hand.

Debate experience

Nats-18

PFD-4 years

LD-3 years

Policy-1

Current Assistant Coach

Introduction: Hello, debaters! I appreciate the opportunity to adjudicate this round. My primary goal is to fairly evaluate your arguments and presentation. Here are some key aspects of my judging philosophy:

Fairness and Respect:

1. I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. Avoid personal attacks and offensive language.
2. Fairness is crucial. Each team should have an equal opportunity to present their case and respond to their opponent's arguments.

Argumentation:

1. Clear and organized arguments are essential. Provide a clear roadmap at the beginning of your speeches to guide me through your contentions.
2. Quality over quantity: Focus on developing a few strong arguments rather than presenting a multitude of weak points.
3. Logical reasoning and evidence are paramount. Support your claims with relevant and credible sources.
4. Weighing and impact analysis are essential. Explain why your arguments are more significant and should be prioritized.

Crossfire and Rebuttals:

1. Engage in meaningful crossfire. Use it to clarify and challenge your opponent's arguments.
2. Strong rebuttals require addressing the core of your opponent's case. Don't just restate your own points; directly engage with theirs.

Speaker Style:

1. Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow.
2. Non-verbal communication is crucial. Maintain eye contact, use gestures appropriately, and be mindful of body language.

Flexibility:

1. While I appreciate adherence to the rules, I'm open to creative and innovative arguments. Surprise me, but make sure your arguments are still within the bounds of reason.

Time Management:

1. Keep track of your time and allocate it wisely. Effective time management is a sign of good debating skills.

Final Focus:

1. Use the final focus to crystallize your key arguments. Clarify why your side has won the debate.

Conclusion: Thank you for your hard work and dedication to the debate. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging round. Good luck!

Overall Philosophy

Prefer to be tab and to be told where to vote. Receptive to critical arguments, procedurals, topicality, etc.

Procedurals/Topicality/Potential Abuse

Will vote on potential abuse if you can win the argument.

Critical Arguments/Performative Arguments

Fine with them. May not be up on the literature, so you'll have to explain the story and how to weigh it.

Impact Calculus/How to Weigh Arguments

Please do it. Otherwise it's hard to know where to vote. If the argument is won, will weigh anything against anything.

Speed/Clarity

No philosophical objection to speed, but may not be able to keep up any more. Will call out speed if you go too fast for me to keep up with. Will also call out for clarity. Can be faster than conversational but probably will not be able to flow hyper-speed.

Background

Former competitor in high school/college.

School assistant coach, 5 years judging experience

Policy

Stock Issue approach

Willing to vote on Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, or theory.

Against conditional negative positions

Do not exceed 7/10 speed.

LD

Value Criterion may be a major factor in my decision

I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round - winning the value/vc debate determines my framework for choosing the winning side. I then evaluate the contentions based on which side accomplishes that value/vc better.

I keep a flow

I am a former High School Speech and Debate competitor. I have experience competing in Public Forum Debate, Prose and Extemp. I competed on the national circuit for 3 years and attended the NSDA National Tournament and NCFL Grand National Tournament on 2 separate occasions. I have earned titles in both Public Forum and Prose, including district, state, as well as a national quarterfinals award.

I want to see that you want to be here. If I think you are bored or taking your round for granted, you will lose points and potentially the round. If you are an audience member, I expect you to be polite and attentive. Show your competitors the respect that you all deserve.

Every round should be crisp and clean, there is no excuse for sloppiness this late in the year, and especially at this tournament. Show me why you deserve to be here!

I will be harsh but fair, I will not simply write praise for your performance, no matter how good, because there is always something to improve. If I write criticism, trust that it is because I truly believe it is deserved and that I am attempting to help you, not tear you down.

I abhor "off the clock" anything. Your time is strictly set and any "grace periods" or "off the clock" speaking are for novice, period. Your time is your time, and I will not stop you, but I will be monitoring it judiciously. It will affect your rating should you choose to disregard the time limits.

I have experience in judging for 4 years.

I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources, overall delivery/presentation - including your manners to your opponents, please don't spread, and keep track of both your and your opponent's time.

Focus on quality of arguments and clash. Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?

Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.

Please give voters. Tell me why you have won.

I prefer well-structured arguments supported by thorough analysis and credible evidence

I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical
arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will
use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede costbenefit
analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are
diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts
(i.e. "one million deaths")?
I love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

About Me:

-Middle School Speech and Debate Coach

-Experience in interpretation events and Public Forum

-Judged a lot of PF and LD this school year

Preferences for round:

-Be polite and respectful. It's an argumentation activity, but it doesn't have to be mean.

-I can flow, but not super quickly. I keep track of main points and clashes.

-Speed is fine, but I am only human!

-I judge a lot on speaking skills! I love to see personable people and not debaters who just read off their facts.

-Road maps are appreciated!

-Judging Debate & Speech for 6+ years

-familiar with extemp, LD, PuF, and Big Question

-Judging based off: strength of case, ability to attack opponents cases and rebuilding your own, good public speaking skills

I have been a debate coach for 11 years. In policy, I prefer traditional stock issue and policy-maker arguments.

I debated throughout high school and have judged at tournaments regularly since then.

I will judge, first and foremost, on the content and clarity of your argument. The presentation itself will be used to determine a winner only when the arguments alone cannot determine a victor.

I do expect people to treat one another with courtesy and respect. I do not appreciate bragging, showboating, ignoring or interrupting your opponent, or talking ill of other opponents. I will be taking note of this type of behavior from the moment I enter the room.

For Policy, my paradigm is a combination of Gaming Model and Legal Model. I also have sympathies for the Legislative Model.

For LD and other non-Policy debate, I consider the classical model of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos).

I'm predisposed against counterplans, so the NEG had better convince me it's the right argument for the *specific* AFF case. Otherwise, I'm judging two AFF's, which is not what secondary ed debate is about.

I am primarily a forensics coach who has judged Policy a handful of times. I debated Public Forum in college.

My biggest thing is that you don't spread - if I have to stop flowing because you are going too fast or I am trying to understand what you are saying...you have already lost me and I will default to a policymaker paradigm.

It is important to me as a judge that you are kind to one another - a little sass is okay, but be careful of being hateful or rude to one another. That is not the point of this debate.

I care way more about clarity than speed. I appreciate signposting as a flow judge. Don't spread.

• I have experience judging in debate for 12 years.
• I value the following: depth in understanding of the core issue, relevancy of evidence and sources; please don’t spread.
• Formulate accurate analyses of evidence: what does it mean for the resolution?
• Civility and poise under all circumstances is appreciated.
  
• Be kind.

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

I am a lay judge who has not judged a lot of debate tournaments. I have more experience with IEs. I prefer more thought out, analytical arguments over fast-paced "fit as much as possible in" type arguments.

Respect, professionalism, real knowledge and true confidence reflect my style. I will not reveal winners at the end of a round. My judging is fair and unbiased. If you are rude during the round that will be considered unprofessional. Respect for your opponent is a factor in my decision making. Seeking opinions from me after the round will not be given.

Speech/Debate Experience: Debated policy debate in high school and have been judging debate for the past 7 years.

Speed: I can follow above average speed (it's the duty of the debater to signpost effectively and speak clearly), but I value quality over quantity of arguments.

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, prep time is going. Since policy debate has extended the prep time amount from 5 minutes to 8 minutes, there should be no reason to try to "steal" prep. Evidence exchanges should also be done on prep.

I will be flowing, but will not extend or weigh arguments for you - it must be said in speeches, which have priority. I also will not consider new arguments in the rebuttals. In order to weigh something on the flow, the argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. You need to provide a reason for why the argument is important to my overall decision.

I typically lean more toward traditional debate, in terms of stock issues being the priority for voting. If negative team can prove that the affirmative doesn't fulfill all five stock issues, then the negative should win the round. I will vote on topicality IF it is a clearly untopical case. I am fine with counterplans if the negative can prove why it cannot coincide with the affirmative plan and solves for the same impacts. Kritiks are also fine in the round if they have a clear link to the case, the argument is clear, and provide clash in the round. However, case debate is my preferred style of argumentation.

I am a Hispanic female, college graduate who grew up in an upper middle-class family in Kansas City. My mother, a native of Mexico, was a homemaker and my father was a political science professor at the university level. I am the mother of three children and have been a stay-at-home mom but also work two part-time jobs. I am open to new ideas and usually try to see both sides of an issue.

Name: April Palmer

School - LSW

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Assistant Coach of a team

D. Policy debater in HS

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 20+ years of policy debate.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking.

Stock Issues -- I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

Policymaker --

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality IF it is deemed important and worthy of flipping the round.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are acceptable IF it is deemed the only alternative. Then argue quality arguments for/against each side.

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: Not a good idea unless you have very specific links to the case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

L. I have judged LD debate for 20+ years.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? If I have missed arguments because of speed, then yes.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? YES

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and/or major analysis of issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow, at the end of the final speech, but either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are necessary to create a "bubble" of the most important arguments.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker and the winner of key arguments in the round.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

I think it's important use evidence to support your points, but you don't need TONS of cards for evidence's sake.

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a flow until the end.

1. Experience with LD debate: Community Judge

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

B. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

C.Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

3. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

A. Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

4. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

A. Final rebuttals should include: Voting issues

B. Voting issues should be given: at the end of the final speech, or .

C. Voting issues are: not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is: acceptable

5. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

6. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always necessary

7. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

1. Your experience with policy debate: Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate: 0-10 years

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate: stock issues

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY: 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS: 4

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES: 6

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 3

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 2

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 5

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 3

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

NFL POLICY DEBATE

JUDGE PHILOSOPHY CARD

Name Michael Russell

School - Lee’s Summit North

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. travel Coach of a team

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged _8___ years of policy debate.

I have judged only 2 varsity rounds this season.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills

Stock Issues

Policymaker

Hypothesis tester

Games-playing

Tabula rasa

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY ( No preference): faster is fine. There’s a lot to say.

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS I prefer a few well argued and defended arguments to the Costco-sized jumble of random arguments.

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: more often than not; I prefer topicality over theory

8. COUNTERPLANS: Acceptable if well planned and defended

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES tend to make me think you don’t have a solid specific argument to a case. I lean heavily toward not liking GENERIC disads.

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS Personal preference is to stay away from debate theory and stay with topicality

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS I view these as slightly more acceptable than generic disads, but use them sparingly and with precision.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information bout practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

Highlight your research. Cards are very important, especially up-to-date citations.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

Name: Michael Russell

School: LSN

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

J. Community Judge

L. I have judged LD debate for _8__ years.

M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

1. Fewer than twenty

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices: (circle one)

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

Rapid conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep. There’s a lot to say and we have limited time.

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No, unless it’s so slow that I fall asleep and don’t catch the arguments.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include

b) line-by-line analysis, or

2. Voting issues should be given

a) as the student moves down the flow,

3. Voting issues are

b) not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

Always necessary 7

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. You might want to include information about practices that you encourage or discourage in a round.

I’m a librarian and believe your cards -- quality, effective research from trusted sources -- can make or break your case. Highlight your research. If you’ve got cards that help prove your point, use them.

Generally speaking, the nuclear war disad needs a VERY strong argument to get my vote. Use it only as a desperate, last gasp, hail-mary defense. I am a child of the cold war of the late 70s and early 80s, when we basically lived through the idea of nuclear war at any moment. The threat was always there.... and yet, it didn't happen. I rarely buy the logic of a nuclear war disad. If you take your disad down the nuclear oblivion rabbit hole, know that it's sort of like having Ronald Reagan and / or Nikita Krushchev launching the nukes on your case.

Creativity, compassion and critical thinking are all major points of emphasis when I take notice of when I judge.

I have 8 years of speech and debate competition experience. Please ask me if you have any questions about my judging!

Debate
- I want 3 voters. Don't let me decide what I vote on.

- I am framework heavy and consider it very important. I may vote someone down if they don't uphold their framework throughout.

- I can handle some speed, but am not a big fan of spreading.

Good Luck!

You have permission to email me at gageshrader24@gmail.com with any comments or questions about my ballot. You may also send me cases or speech docs here.

Hi. My name is Helene Slinker. I am the assistant coach at Raytown South High School in Raytown, Missouri.

In high school, I competed in public forum debate, congressional debate, original oratory, and occasionally U.S. extemp for four years. In college, I competed in policy debate in the NDT-CEDA circuit for two years.

Policy

Policy debate is, largely, a question of impacts. When making a decision, I first look at who had the biggest impact and then evaluate who accesses their impact better. The most important thing for you to do is impact calc/impact weighing.

Speed - I can follow speed. Make sure you're clear on the tagline but you can probably go as fast as you want. I may tell you if you're going too fast or too unclear for me to follow. In general, speaking skills are not a priority to me in comparison to quality of argumentation.

T and Theory - I will vote on topicality, but remember that a topicality argument must have structure. You need an interpretation, violation, standards and voters for topicality to be a viable argument. Make sure you invest time in topicality or theory if you want me to vote on it.

CPs - They are fine, I don't have any strong thoughts. I don't really care either way on conditionality, you need to make sure to invest time on it if you are going for a theory argument.

DAs - DAs are fine, I have no issue with "generic disadvantages." It's all about getting to an impact and outweighing.

Ks - I don't mind Ks. I have some experience running and debating against Ks in college. I don't have an incredibly in depth knowledge of all literature bases though, if you are running something very out of the blue you may want to explain heavily.

K affs - K affs are fine (I have some experience running one) and I will also consider and vote on framework. Whatever is put in front of me, I'll evaluate. Both sides have equal chances to win a framework vs K aff debate.

Other thoughts and pet peeves:

A priority for me is organization. A big pet peeve is when late rebuttals are messy and all over the place. Also, please, split the block!

When you're extending arguments, make sure you're clear about the argument, not just the author.

Please, be nice! I really hate judging mean debates and I will give you bad speaker points if you're mean to the other team. You can be aggressive without being mean.

LD

I did LD for one year, my freshman year of high school. I don't like when people get caught up in the evidence line by line rather than weighing value and vc against each other. The most successful LD teams take their opponents value and prove why they access it more.

Speed - See policy paradigm, I'm fine with it but be clear. Rate of delivery/speaking skills does not weigh heavily in my decision. I will flow the debate just as I would a policy debate.

Evidence vs Values - Values are more important, evidence is encouraged but remember what it is all in support of.

PFD

I did PFD for four years in high school but since doing policy in college my perspective has changed somewhat. PFD can often be confusing to follow. I will flow the debate and vote solely on arguments. Although every speech should be doing impact comparison, the last speech should especially focus on clearing up the remaining offense and defense into a coherent ballot.

Yes I wanna be on the email: kelsdebate@gmail.com

Speed is fine. 

I am a grad student and graduate teach assistant/coach. I actively competed with the Missouri State in LD my senior year. Undergraduate years prior to that work with the team was done none competitvely. With my communication background competitve and persuasive rhetoric is recognized and can be rewarded -speaker points wise- in conjunction with winning the flow. Impact calculous and net benefit emphasis is important to win a round. Don't get so caught up in the other aspects that you forget stock issues etc. 

DA: Always willing to buy a well presented DA with full internal link.

CP: Must be won in all aspects, perms must be answered well. I don't think this is the strongest negative position to take in most cases due being poorly executed and the debate not reaching it's full potential. 

Theory: Interesting arguments to hear but make sure you can fully defend and answer questions about it entirely so the debate can reach it's full potential. 

K: Kritik that links to the case is best. Will vote on a well presented and defended K. 

T: Willing to vote on T if it is ran correctly, I do not believe this usually happens. Blatant time wasting strategy is annoying if it crosses a certain threshold.

Main point: Play to your strength strategy wise but do so well, if you don't understand and explain the argument well it doesn't matter how good the argument is because you don't actually know what you're saying. Don't forget about the basics and the flow. That's how you win. 

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

I was in speech and debate in high school from 2015-2019. I did HI, DUO, storytelling, poetry, and POI. Last year, I was an assistant coach for Blue Springs High School. This year, I am the assistant coach for Moreland Ridge Middle School. I never competed in debate, but I have judged many debate rounds before.

I am a lay judge. I can flow and will follow arguments. I'm not a fan of spreading.

I've judged various kinds of debate for 13 years.

I don't like it when debaters talk really fast and I usually don't follow most of it when they do. Trying to get more in by taking fast won't help the debate, I would rather they slow down and make less points more meaningful.

I have very little tolerance for debaters who are rude to each other or disrespectful to me as a judge. Good sportsmanship is a must. Debates are so much more fun to watch when the participants are civil :)

I decide a winner based on whoever does the better debating, not based on what I think about a particular issue. So saying, "For these reasons and many more, I urge a ___ vote on today's ballot." will not help. I don't judge anything that isn't said in the round, only the points the debaters actually make.