Head coach with 28 years experience. Entirely a policymaker who just wants what is *realistically* best for our nation and world.

1. I vote on your analysis of the evidence read in round, not on the evidence itself. Cards are jigsaw pieces, and it is your job to show me how they connect. I will not intervene and fill in the gaps with my own analysis about why a card or argument matters.

2. I do not do well with speeding and spreading; you may have to make a decision between impressing the other team or winning this round. I know that you have worked incredibly hard to get to this round, and I really want to understand you and your arguments. Please know that I cannot vote on arguments I cannot understand. Your brilliance is best revealed by the words I do understand, not the ones I do not.

3. Treat me as a member of congress who is evaluating a policy proposal for our nation.

4. All arguments are fair game, but if you cannot convince me of them (rather than just reading them), I'm as likely to vote on inherency as I am a kritik.

Please use speechdrop.net, if using an email chain. Archerdan82@gmail.com, please put me on.

I'm Dan Archer I debate for Washburn University in my fourth year, NFA LD format ( 1 person policy ). I debated for 4 years at Derby high.

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

Please don't adapt to me.

Aggressive CX are annoying and unnecessary. Insults are a round loser for me. It's one thing to debate the args but personal attacks are a round loser.

K debate- I am familiar with core K args but anything that's too far out you need to explain. You are welcome to ask me before the round if I'm familiar with your K/ authors.

T- You still need to do standards debate and everything, but I tend to lean toward competing interps. Saying voters for fairness and Ed is not an argument, impact that out.

Theory- do what you can justify

Speed- Do whatever the norm is.

CP- CP's do what you can justify. I get annoyed by super vague cp texts.

DA- use them anything goes.

Case- if you are going for presumption make it clear and you need to put together a good story here, you're better off having a risk of offense

I don't read evidence unless I am asked. If i am asked to read evidemce, tell me what I am looking for. If you tell me the card is bad and I should read it, you're asking me to intervene. I believe the tag lines of evidence is true until I'm told otherwise.

You dictate the pace and atmosphere of the round. If you are clearly winning the round please don't bully the other team.

Please clearly tell me why you win. That is the best thing you can do in the round.

If I don't have something on the flow then I don't think it happened.

TLDR: I run everything and have experience with most args. I am most comfortable in a round that the debaters are doing what they are comfortable doing. This is your round I will evaluate the args as presented.

Cade, he/him

UM CAMP STUDENTS --- cblenden@umich.edu

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21, North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy:

Speed is fine, a lack of clarity is not. Debaters should go as fast as they can without over-exerting themselves and falling off of pace. Nuanced debates that require lots of analytics, etc. (think counterplan competition or theory) should be slowed down a solid 20% to make sure I can keep up. I will not be afraid to say I did not catch something if it was too fast for me to get down.

Able to judge anything, probably have a bit of a critical bend. I'd prefer you to read the arguments you are most comfortable with than attempting to try to adapt to me--you are most likely a better orator on the positions you are confident in!

T/Theory/Etc. - these debates are my least favorite, but I feel as if I blame this on the fact that I cannot for the life of me keep up on these subjects if both teams decide to spread through quick tags, short cards, and large blocks of theory arguments without providing sufficient pen time. I am game for T and theory, just know I am not a flowing savant, and thus going very fast through a large amount of arguments is difficult. Keeping this in mind probably means you will have a much easier time keeping me in debates like this.

Judge kick seems to make sense if condo is justified, but I am game to question either of those premises.

"Cheating" counterplans (international fiat, object fiat, etc.) are up for debate, though I am much more likely to be persuaded if you can find a decent literature base that advocates in specific the proposal you defend, i.e., the world government counterplan with a solvency advocate is probably more convincing than a specific bilateral cooperation/action counterplan without one.

Competing interpretations makes logical sense, reasonability seems arbitrary and indeterminate, but I am down to be convinced otherwise.

CP/DA - these debates are fine, though I get lost with too much jargon (idk what a link controlling uniqueness or the inverse means or the impact it has on the round--if this is your schtick, explain the implication of what you are saying so I can keep up!)---impact comparison is the quickest way to get me with arguments like this.

K - As long as you can explain it! Don't mind listening to anything, though tags beyond three sentences and I may be a bit annoyed. I privilege debaters who can effectively explain their argument and contextualize it to the scenario of the debate round we are in. Topic-specific K > backfile check.

Case - Big case debate guy. Consequently also a big presumption guy--so many teams get away with warrantless 2ACs on case that are easily punished by spending some extra time there. From affirmatives, I would appreciate an effort to ensure the advantages/solvency mechanisms/etc. are explained/extended in some capacity in each speech, beyond mere tagline mentions. Efficiency should not come at the cost of argumentative depth and clarity. All I have said here applies especially to critical affirmatives. I much prefer cap + fwk and case to 5 nonsense variations of the heg DA that don't link.

More teams should be willing to defend their affirmative against the K--if ur aff sets up the link turn really well, don't invest needless time in setting up a losing perm debate!

PF:

Talk about the topic. Compare impacts. Respond to your opponents arguments. The more these things get overcomplicated, the harder PF becomes to understand and reliably judge.

LD:

I am judging this like a policy debate. Theory is not something I am the biggest fan of--especially some of the 'LD' type frivolous theory arguments.

Experience: 2 years college policy, 5 years parli, 5 years NFA-LD, I've been coaching a combination of HS policy, CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD and Parli for 9 years.

Email for the chain: bowersd@moval.edu

Online Debate: A couple of things I think are important before starting. Please make sure that your computer is plugged in before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there will be tech problems throughout the year, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot.

I'll talk about some things here to maybe clear some questions you may have but genuinely whatever you want to do. If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Impact framing: Sans an alternative I think that death is the worst impact in the debate, but I'm very willing and happy to listen to other impact framing arguments.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps, that being said I'm open to whatever method you want in terms of evaluating the argument. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

CP: Awesome, fun, I don't think I've met a counterplan I wasn't in some way a fan of from a strategic standpoint. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

K: I don't have a preference for any type of alternative, I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

Please add me to the email chain: sgoddardoe@olatheschools.org

I have coached for a few years and am always learning. Don't assume I know anything but I will listen to and entertain almost everything.

I'm a former high school policy debater and current litigator - I say this because my approach to judging debate has changed over the years given my professional experience. I'm more of an in between flow/lay judge now.

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

- I think political arguments, e.g. Republicans in Congress won't pass the plan, are annoying. As the judge I am the legislative, executive, and judicial branch, if I sign an affirmative ballot then Congress passed the plan, etc.

- Dropped arguments are not necessarily the winning ticket for me. You still need to explain/argue the point, clash, at least once, on their arguments. Just telling me to pull the argument through is annoying - at least explain why their silence on the matter is an issue.

- Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide.

- Keep to decorum and maintain a degree of candor with one another and me.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature and very much appreciate a well-constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. Strike to the core of their argument, and show me the underlying structural issues.

Theory/T- I am unlikely to vote on a cheap-shot theory argument unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. However, that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-I despise CPs, especially in JV and Open. I think they are used as cheap shots to catch inexperienced teams off-guard. I will NOT vote for these.

Ultimately, I'm approaching your round with few preconceived notions and expect you to give me well-structured arguments.

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

AFFILIATIONS:
Current Director of Debate and Forensics (JC Harmon High School - Kansas City, Kansas)

(DEBATE - Kansas City)

(NSDA - East Kansas)

Yes, email chain - kevinjaykinsella@gmail.com

Yes, you may shake my hand. Shaking hands and introducing oneself is a cultural norm that I value.

PHILOSOPHY:

I do not get "lost in the sauce" in regard to technicalities in debate. However, if I comment "lost in the sauce" on your ballot, then you probably lost. Debate is a game of chess, in which teammates are setting up his/her/their partner for the next move. I was raised in a stock issue style debate mentality. Through the years and moving from and participating in more traditional, suburban debate to more progressive, urban debate, I am more flexible to all styles. I often find that I make my decision during Cross-Examination (CX). Anyone can read files that someone from the University of Michigan wrote and put in DropBox. Trust me. I have read all the files that you will run unless you wrote them yourself. You have to bob and weave with the flow of the debate. I ultimately reward whichever team convinces me that they have the better argument (sound simple, eh?).

AGRESSIVENESS:

I love when teams are aggressive, not rude, but aggressive. I often find that whichever team is able to control the narrative of the debate, is often crowned the victor.

SPEED:

I love a high rate of speed. However, if you are not comfortable or confident in your ability to spread, then don't.

EVIDENCE:

I value reputable and recent evidence. If you use some trash source, I will judge you (that's my job). I also believe that it is highly important that you promote your evidence and chastise your opponents. I am a voracious reader of the news. Impress me with your knowledge of how the current topic applies to today, not whenever someone from Northwestern cut this card a year ago from a source that is several years old.

KRITIKAL DEBATE:

I am a fan of K debate. I am an urban debate coach, so K and performance debate is what we are all about. However, K arguments are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams. If you run a "K" because your argument is weak or you are unprepared, it is painfully obvious. The "K" that you run must have some reason that it is being run for this particular debate. If it is not relevant to the debate at hand, then do not run it. Many teams try to run a "K' (especially one that they deem as controversial and outside mainstream thought) in an effort to shock a judge and hide a weak and unprepared argument.

COUNTER PLAN:

I am a big fan of Counter Plans. However, CPs are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Former high school debater from 2010-2014 at Hutchinson, former assistant at Lawrence Free State. I mostly did/have enjoyed judging KDC style debate. I'm not familiar with most K lit, so it'd be a stretch for me to vote on its merits unless there has been a clear procedural error by the other team.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Add me to the email chain:kansaslala@gmail.com

About me: I debated in high school at Lawrence Free state for two years (2014-2015). I did not debate in college. I have returned to judge high school debate tournaments since leaving Free State.

Our backgrounds inform how we see the world, and subsequently how we interpret information. I have a bachelors in Ecology, Evolution & Organismal biology from KU, and I work as a horticulture extension agent for K-State. A lot of my research and work has focused on the agriculture industry, food insecurity, climate crisis, and environmental racism. I also have a bachelors and masters in Classical Languages (Latin and Greek) from KU, and have extensively studied how politics, gender/sexuality, economics, and culture interact and impact each other across antiquities. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

If you make sexist/racist/homophobic/ableist/derogatory remarks, I will drop you. Do not try to get me to vote on things that have these hurtful undertones.

If you are talking about traumatic situations, treat them with respect and do NOT relay graphic or upsetting details for shock value. Giving a speech that should have trigger warnings is not appropriate - no one in the room can opt to avoid the content. Your arguments do not exist simply within the context of the round. They carry real life impact. You do not know the life experience of your judges, teammates, or opponents.

General thoughts

• Civility: Be courteous. If you are being rude, aggressive, or a bully to your opponent, that will not bode well for your team. Micro-aggressions will lower your speaker points. Also, there is no reason to get really loud during a speech. An inability to regulate your emotions is not impressive nor professional. Grace under pressure, however, is.
• Speed: I value clarity and annunciation first. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not take it into account during the round. Speed is fine, but I have been out of debate for a few years and will not necessarily keep up with your top speed. Slow down for tags/authors. If a point is really important, slow down to make sure I flow it. If I don't flow it, I wont know it.
• Sign posting: Let me know where you are at, if you leave me to decide where your arguments fit and what you are attempting to respond to, I will be less likely to apply those arguments where they need to go.
• Winning my vote: You need to tell me what to vote on and why. In your last speech, choose the strongest arguments - I prefer one stronger argument than several weak ones.
• Abide by time limits. Anything said after the timer goes off will be disregarded -- this does not include roadmaps. Off time road maps expected.
• Evidence:I prefer when debaters interact with their evidence and it's contents. I want to see critical thinking. Sometimes winning an argument is not about instantly discrediting a piece of evidence because the tagline says you are wrong. If presented with evidence that opposes yours, think about what made the author take their stance and what situations they had in mind when they wrote it. I am far more impressed by a debater's ability to pick out flaws or respond to the nuance of the evidence than their ability to read out someone's credentials or know what year came first (unless it is truly pertinent to the validity of the evidence).
• Cross x: Personally, I prefer closed cross x. It allows me to see how good each debater is at asking the right questions and thinking on their feet rather than letting your partner fill in. However, if both teams prefer open cross x, I am ok with it. Be sure to use cross-x effectively and don't get sassy with each other thinking that your little jabs at the other team is impressive to me. I am most impressed by level-headed, and professional interactions.
• Prompting: I am NOT okay with lots of prompting. I understand if you need to hand your partner a card. I'm somewhat understanding if your partner is forgetting something big and need a quick reminder. But promoting interrupts the flow of your speech and tells me you are not prepared. Yes, you are a team, but a good debater should be able to make a speech on their own. I can let it slide once or twice, but more than that and I will stop considering arguments that your partner had to prompt you for.

Arguments

I am fine with whatever you bring up. BUT you have to make sure you present it clearly, demonstrate how it relates to the current arguments, and show why it is a reason to vote on. It is fine to say "this is a voting issue" but you need to convey why. Do not assume I have prior knowledge on your arguments, explain it.

Remember that nothing exists in a vacuum. This includes your arguments.

Please give each argument a new page on the flow and tell me the framework and implications of each argument. If you want me to extend evidence or arguments, don't just tell me to extend it. Tell me why.

• Theory: Theory is fine if it is warranted. Do not use it as a way to exclude anyone from the debate. Do not run an overly esoteric theory argument because you think the other team won't understand it.
• Topicality: Unless relevant and you sincerely think the case is not within the topic, avoid it.
• Kritiks: I am not well versed in K's so if you use them, don't just throw buzzwords around and assume I have prior knowledge. If you can explain it well and make a compelling argument, that's great. Make sure you have a solid link and that it really does apply to the discussions at hand.
• Counterplans: Be as specific as possible. Generic links are okay, but you won't get as far with them. Same with DA's.
• Impact calculus: Its important (essential, even) but don't just say which scenario is worse. Factor in likelihood of the impact and it's timeline.

You can always ask me questions before round as well.

4 years at BVSW

Current Sophomore debating at Missouri State

add me to chains: elidebate35[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

Tech>Truth

Not the best judge to have a planless debate in front of

Have done 0 research on the HS topic so keep that in mind

Competing Interps> reasonability in a T debate

Condo is good but its a debate to be had

K Aff/Framework:

I think that if you are reading a planless aff an advocacy statement should be part of the aff, I think it needs to be in the area of the topic and if it's not, I'm going to be very persuaded by framework. I think procedural fairness is an impact in the round and will be persuaded by it. I may be persuaded by structural fairness outweighs, but more then likely not unless very well done. The best chance a K aff has is to win a DA or a broader impact turn. If you do end up reading a k aff in front of me, I may not have a great evaluation. K v K has a decent chance of being completely lost on me unless it's a k i've gone for.

K's:

If the answer to the K is Framework and a perm, please go for it (Change due to KCKCC

I'm not deep in the lit so don't expect me to know the nuances of Baudrillard or arguments like that. I think that specific links to the aff are good and the more specific the better. I don't think links of omission are good and am very unlikely to vote on them. If you are a K team don't be deterred to go for what you feel comfortable going for but if it's really high theory explanations go a long way.

CP:

Cps should be textually and functionally competitive with the aff. This is what I have gone for in college and am very comfortable voting on them. you should make a sufficiency framing arg. I default judge kick if nothing is said in the round.

DA:

Great. I am ok with generic links but at some point in the debate you should make an arg as to why it applies to this aff specifically not just the topic as a whole. you should have impact calc in every block and in the 2nr as well.

T:

T's a voting issue and comes before most aff theory, RVI's are not

I debated for four years in high school and competed in 4-speak regional and state tournaments during that time. I have judged two rounds on this year's topic prior to this tournament.

- Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

- A stock issues emphasis is my default, but I can be a policy maker if both teams take the round that way. Debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them.

- I am extremely flow oriented and a clear roadmap and signposting is ideal. I don't mind speed/rapid delivery as long as the presentation is clearly enunciated and I can keep up with the flow.

- Counterplans are rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

- Topicality is fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

- I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

- I do not like kritiks and prefer specific real world arguments.

I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn

I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...

Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.

Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.

The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.

I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.

This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.

But on specific arguments

T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.

Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.

CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.

I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good--X--------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

Tech--X--------Truth

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

Games Judge to Stock issues.

Debate is a mental exercise where what is important ends up being what the debaters and audience establish is important for the round. The rules of the game are that the side that wins the most stock issues wins the debate.

That said this is debate and everything is up for it. I'm open to any of your arguments.