Hi! I'm Reeya (she/her) and I'm a fourth-year debater at East. Make sure to focus on clash in round, and be as clear and logical as possible when speaking! Email me with any questions you have about ballots: rkamath863@gmail.com. Thanks and good luck! :)

I have high school, collegiate, coaching, and judging experience in policy, LD and BP debate. I'm open to most arguments as long as they are well-vouched for, with specific links and clear strings of logic. I value the educational value of debate, so I ask that you use your evidence responsibly and communicate clearly and effectively. These factors, along with the content of the round and the overall persuasiveness of your arguments, will determine my decision on your ballot.

Communication is the most important thing to me. If that is compromised by your argument presentation, you should rethink your strategy. Otherwise, all arguments are free game to me, given their appropriateness and sound rhetoric!

I think of myself as an ordinary voter of general intelligence. I won't apply any speciality knowledge I might have in the round itself, but I will think through things. If you can make that thinking easier on me with good link chains and strong warrants and impacts, you will likely win the round.

Thank you and good luck to all!

Default Policy maker judge, that will judge as a stock issues if told to. Impact Analysis is very important/

4 year debater and current coach at Bishop Carroll.

Fine with speed, as long as you enunciate. Roadmaps and sign posting is important to be able to flow the debate.

Ok with K, but make sure the link is clear

Prefer T to be very blatant, will not vote on generic T unless the aff completely drops it.

DA's specific links preferable, I will vote for generic DAs if the link story is explained.

Ask if you have any questions.

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

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

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

Debate Experience: 3 years at Derby High School

email: erxlemak@usd260.com

General Experience:

Speed: go as fast as you want, as long as you are clear

CX: Open & Closed cx are both welcome (I personally prefer open cx myself)

T

Most likely to default to competing interps, but you have to do the work for this; extend standards and voters, but also clash.

DA

Neg, explain how the DA o/w and turns the case, don't just say those words. The more specific the link, the better. If you have a crafty DA then make sure to have a really strong link explanation.

CP

The CP needs a net benefit and explain how it doesn't link to the aff. Aff, make solvency deficits and explain how perm solves. Also, POST the CP. Offense is important. Neg, explain how the CP solves the aff and their advantages.

K

I LOVE K debate, but make sure you're adequately explaining your argument, especially your alt.

K Aff / FW

f/w - clash and impacts are important. Make sure to answer all the little DAs aff will put on f/w.

K Aff - explain to me what your aff does and how it solves. I feel that a lot of K aff teams just say words, and no one else really knows what they mean.

Yo,

Email: esquiale@usd260.com

Topicality- Is important and if it is dropped you are at a major disadvantage

Framework- If its brought up you must answer it

Cp's and K's- Avoid using them in Novice Division, but if you're feeling bold at least know what you're talking about

ADV/DA- Like when dropped arguments are pointed out

Rebuttals- Don't just read cards

Speed- Make it coherent; Could be asked to slow down

Games- sure

Asides from what's above, you can do whatever you want with proper reasoning and common sense

Also keep in mind that Policy Debate is a game with several ways to win

I am an experienced 3rd year debate student. I will be judging tabula rasa and in the occasion you do not tell me how to vote then I will judge based off of the list below. Furthermore, I am a mix of Stock Issues, and I do not personally like topicality unless it explicitly necessary to the case.

-Speaking. I want to be able to understand what you are saying. Annunciate and speak up. I will not be able to understand your arguments if I cannot hear you.

-Arguments. No matter the circumstances, the aff must win on all arguments, no matter how small. If any argument is not addressed in a debate round, the aff will lose the round. I also hope that you signpost and roadmap within the round and explain all arguments.

-Topicality. When/If topicality is run, I prefer the neg win on the argument if structured correctly, meaning you have both standards and voters. If this is not met, then the aff can address the argument similarly to how the neg structured it. For the aff, all topicality must be addressed similarly to how the neg structured it.

-Rules. The rules of debate must be upheld within the round in most circumstances. This means keep prep time to your allotted time, no new arguments in a round, ect. Breaking any of these rules will almost always count as an automatic loss to your team.

Most importantly, I hope all students I judge find this to be a learning experience and have a fun debate round. Please respect all students and judges in the round and do your best today!

I am fine with all arguments that can be presented within a debate. If it is a Kritik I would like some more explanation of it. I prefer that all arguments that are not theory or T have an impact card. Pure analytics is fine for an argument as long as it is either on the T or theory flow, but at least in the 2A and Neg block I would like to see a card per argument if it on the case flow or the DA, CP or K. Other than that as long as you can explain your argument well you can theoretically run anything in front of me. (Card extensions are more than welcome)

Other things

Speed: Go as fast as you want- be clear though.

Please have impact calc

Framing in the debate is always nice

Offtime roadmaps are always welcome

Dont be scared and have fun with the debate - maybe read some troll args that are still winnable - just make sure to have a good time.

Also I hate K affs. Just read it on the neg. We are here to debate a policy and being able to read the K on the neg is more than enough.

Jayden Island

Experience: Debated for 4 years in HS; 2x NCFL competitor and finalist in policy; 2022 NSDA competitor in policy and 2023 competitor in IX

Email: naomi.derby19@gmail.com

Things you should know:

Speed: Feel free to go as fast as you see fit; however, please make sure that you are signposting and that you are at least somewhat coherent. Will say clear if absolutely necessary.

CX: Please be cordial during this time and I don't care whether you use open or closed tbh

T: No specific preferences, but at least make sure that you are doing all of the work i.e standards & voters instead of just throwing out an interpretation with no context

DA: I really enjoy the work done on econ disadvantages, especially when there is a strong link. Any disads are fine, again, as long as you clearly explain the story and don't just provide buzzwords like "O/W & Turns case," etc. I really don't love politics disadvantage as I feel that the links are very weak, but I will evaluate them regardless granted that you do sufficient line-by-line explanations.

CP: Please provide a net benefit. On Aff, explain how the perm can solve for the CP and why your plan has greater solvency. For Neg, do the same work on solvency, and please extend your CP into the block as 9/10 times, it's not as bad as you think it is.

K: You will have to explain each of your FW arguments in order for me to buy the story- if you do not provide a competitive alternative I will likely not vote on the K, but feel free to go for the Link and ! if you would like to drop the alt after the block (but be sure to do all of the work to answer alt defense before doing so). I have gone for afro-pessimism, cap, and set-col so I am most familiar with that literature, though I am open to evaluating any critical arguments read throughout the debate.

please give me good song recommendations- will give extra speaker points if they're actually good XOXO.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Derby High School

currently at KU but not debating & I have not judged any rounds on this years topic

Email: cejohnson2022@gmail.com

General Notes:

Speed: go as fast as you want, as long as you are clear.

CX: please don't be rude during cx. I think that making your point is good, but being rude to your opponents or interrupting your partner will decrease your speaks.

T

Most likely to default to competing interps, but you have to do the work for this. Extend standards and voters, but also clash.

DA

Politics DAs are awesome! I love DA debate, make sure to do the work on the i/l and impact level. Neg, explain how the DA o/w and turns the case, don't just say those words. The more specific the link, the better. If you have a crafty DA then make sure to have a really strong link explanation.

CP

The CP needs a net benefit and explain how it doesn't link. Aff, make solvency deficits and explain how the perm solves. POST the CP. Offense is important. Neg, explain how the CP solves the aff and their advantages.

K

I've gone for Queer Theory, Fem & Cap, but don't let that deter you from running what you want. Just make sure to explain your alt.

K Aff/ FW

f/w - clash and impacts are important. TVAs are cool. Make sure to answer all the little DAs aff will put on f/w.

K Aff - explain to me what your aff does and how it solves, I feel that a lot of K aff teams just say words and no one else really knows what they mean.

Eight years as a competitor, four of those as an assistant coach, second year as a head coach at Emporia HS, KS.

Topicality - Not my fav argument but I'll vote for it. PLEASE focus on standards and voters. Do not just argue definitions without standards the entire time - I probably won't vote on it. Prove you win your standards and voters AND that they are better than the other team's. Don't just run T on any case...

Disadvantages - Make sure you do strong impact calculus.

Kritik - Run whatever, Theory is cool if you know how to run it well. Not a fan of vague alt, I'd listen to theory on it.

Counterplans - Focus on net benefit, that's about it. I like CP's and I'm not super picky. Theory is cool if you know how to run it well.

Speed - I don't really care, but if the other team can't follow, slow down for them. It makes for a better debate if your opponent can understand you. If I'm not on the SpeechDrop, give me a little signposting to help me out.

Flowing - Do it. :)

I usually will just conform to whatever you want me to vote for in the round. Just be kind to each other and have a good debate.

Almost every round I judge is lost on two things:

1) The team doesn't flow and loses a debate they should win but they drop things without realizing it.

2) The team does not clearly show where they are at on the flow, so I'm forced to guess/search for the argument on the flow that they are attacking/answering. Be clear in your signposting throughout the speech (I often call it they say/we say on my team but your team may call it something else) and I will be able to flow well and judge well for you!

I would appreciate being on the email chain/Speechdrop. My email is adam.moore@usd253.net

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is good or bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

Hi, I'm Sydnie VanArsdale I am a current college MUN (Model United Nations) delegate at Wichita State University and was previously one for Washburn University. I did 4 years of almost all varsity policy debate, captain 3 of those 4, and 2 years of forensics (IX and Info) for Bishop Carroll. I’m a hybrid tabula rasa/Hypothesis tester (This means that I come into the round with no previous opinions on the facts and although I understand them you need to give me the basis of where to start and why I should want to believe that) and will default to an impact lean if not guided on how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter (this is a note for you in every round not just for me. Impact analysis is everything in your rebuttals).

I vote based on the quality of the argument/evidence. A smart and substantive debate will win my vote more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent AND I will notice if an argument is dropped, as I flow diligently, so that will be a large part of my end-of-round evaluation.

There aren't any arguments I am specifically opposed to as long as they are debated correctly and supported, I'm fine with it. From that, I will vote on any issue if I find it substantive and defended inadequately, whether that be a T, Kritik, CP, Disad, or case. Nothing is way too absurd for me as long as you run it well. However, I do get a little bit irritated hearing a generic Disad, but if you are a novice, I will be lenient on how I judge that.

Speed is absolutely fine but if speed isn't you don't feel that you have to, it is not a debate requirement. That is also a note to the opponents. If you ask your opponents if they are okay with speed and they say no, then please be respectful or at least aware of that.

Most importantly, as a debater, I know how competitive any of us can be, but remember debate is supposed to be both competitive and fun. you probably think that's BS and to be fair I did too. Despite my saying that I do love true clash. If there isn't any all of us will be bored, not just me, so keep that in mind. Clash is what makes debate fun for everyone.

If you make an email chain, please include me or if you have any questions about the ballot: sydnievanarsdale05@gmail.com

I'm okay with shaking hands. If using an email chain, add: jacobdebate260@gmail.com

Policymaker judge, but proving out of round abuse is funny and hilarious and will probably boost your speaks, but I won't grant any points on my RFD unless it's overkill. Also bonus points if you give in depth substantial debate explaining why your opponents are wrong and you are right and why their cards are bad and yours are good and the whole nine yards.

Inherency - Be inherent. Either explain why your warrants in their cards does not apply to your case, why your case stands out from the squo, or how the squo method is currently failing. Date debate is cringe unless you explain why your card being more recent in context matters, but I hope for an aff to be ran you'll have done some research like, oh I don't know, being inherent. I give less weight to inherency args for novices due to the constriction of the novice packet, but don't fumble the bag aff.

Solvency - Yes, advantages do stem from solvency. I would like to see solvency, as well as inherency and all other stock issues, extended throughout the round. Doesn't mean you'll win them, it just means you won't lose on them at the beginning of the debate. Prove why the plan itself or an aspect of the plan wouldn't solve, or by solving you are doing something worse. Solvency is a pretty nifty debate, but don't run thirty eight solvency args and expect your opponents to respond to all. The more shallow solvency args, the more leeway I give to the aff to answer them.

Theory - go for it, but again a large amount of substantial burdens have to be met for it to factor into my RFD.

DA's/CP - BEST DEBATE STYLE, but neg has a lot of burdens to fill, i.e. CP is better than the aff, DA doesn't link to the CP, yadayada. My favorite debate is a clash on case especially with a little CP/DA mixed in, just make sure you understand it. I will def vote on you if you meet the threshold, but it's a steep hill to climb on if you're trying to prove the negative CP is more beneficial, you must meet all, or at least a sufficiently high, amount of burdens.

K's - K's are fine to run, I understand the literature of most K's, but if you see me do the whole head turning thing, might want to take that as a hint that I'm A) paying attention and B) confused. Novices, make sure you understand your K's or whatever arg your running. The most important thing to me is the link in the K

T's - Definition debates are hilarious and would love to see that, but it probably won't influence my ballot. What will though, are standards and limits debate. Voters really won't, T is a voter either way because it's a stock issue. A voters debate will take a lot of work to go towards the aff. Standards and Limits are fun, show why the aff is good or bad for education and fairness. Cool stuff like that and running a good T arg in REBUTTALS will def help your speaks.

Btw be good people first and good debaters second!!!