My Background:

My name is Mr. Barton and I was previously the head coach of the Blue Valley Northwest Debate Squad from the Fall of the 2021 school year through the Fall of the 2022 school year. I graduated from Park Hill High School, in Kansas City, Missouri, where I participated in three years of debate & forensic events. The events I competed in were primarily: Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public-Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, Policy Debate, Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking, and International Extemporaneous Speaking. I competed in a few other events, but those were the main events I competed in. In my time competing in high school, I earned the rank of "outstanding distinction" in the National Speech & Debate Association and received numerous accolades as well.

I am also a passionate social studies educator. Debate is a very valuable/noble activity because of the skills it teaches students. Critical thinking, learning to cite sources properly, learning to build arguments, and learning to appeal to specific audiences are just a few of the amazing skills that debate imparts to students.

My Paradigm:

In order for the affirmative team to win, the plan must defend and retain all of the stock issues, which are Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality. For the negative to win, they need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. At the end of the round, I will compare the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the negative's status-quo position. Whichever side of the debate better explains their position and their arguments will be the winner of the round. Quality of evidence is very important in terms of making credible arguments. I consider rebuttals to be the most significant opportunity to show off your refutation prowess. In the rebuttals, focus on the big picture, that is, the most significant, hard-hitting arguments you/your opponents have made in the round. I don't place an enormous amount of importance on the quantity of your arguments, rather, the quality of them and the degree to which you were clear or unclear when making your arguments. Remember, debate is ultimately an exercise in communication. Please enunciate. I want to hear well reasoned, logical arguments backed up with solid evidence, presented in an aesthetically appealing fashion. In addition to this, please be a polite. It's certainly fine to be disagreeable in a debate round, but don't cross the line and become mean or degrading to your opponents in any way. If you do cross that line, that will certainly translate into a deduction from your speaker points and more than likely a loss of the round.

Important Notes:

Your quality of argumentation will determine whether you win or lose the round. Your arguments need to be comprised of a compelling claim, relevant data, a logical warrant, and a believable impact. Additionally, you need to weigh impacts. Speed is not preferred, and you need to be understandable. If you are not understandable, you will risk losing the round. Kritiks are not preferred. I find that Kritiks are often designed to stifle debate, not encourage it. I see the stifling of debate as an incredibly destructive force in our society and in the world at large. No clipping: follow proper evidence ethics please. Please be in control of your emotions at all times during the debate. No racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise abusive behavior/rhetoric will be tolerated. Above all, be a good person. The best way to boost your ethos in any debate is to simply be a kind, compassionate, and courteous person, especially to your opponents, who you will be debating with. Please note that the above mentioned traits are not the same thing as signaling virtue or being fake. I will be able to tell the difference. Thanks in advance for striving to appeal to my judging paradigm.

Hello! My name is Eve Benditt (she/her) and I am a fourth year debater at SME!

If you want more feedback than what I wrote down feel free to email me post-round!

General:

• If you are at all discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will immediately sign and submit my ballot for the other team.
• Giving the other team a paper copy of your 1AC if you're not a paper debater is annoying and you shouldn't do it.
• If I was you I probably wouldn't read a K in front of me. This is not to say that I don't have a basic understanding of a K, but I am not a K debater nor am I read on whatever rando lit you're giving me...

• I’d rather you underestimate what I know and over-explain your args. If I can’t explain your argument by the end of the round I probably won’t weigh it in my decision.

• I’m okay with some speed as long as you’re clear and I can understand what you’re saying

• Truth>tech

• DO NOT CLIP CARDS. You MUST make it clear that you are cutting a card and if the opposing team asks where you cut it please be able to answer.

• DA need links - I prefer case specific but if it’s a niche aff I understand this might not always be possible. If you're making your links verbally/doing it analytically just make sure it makes sense.

• Disclosure is good and you should do it.

• I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round.

• Please don’t send over a 100+ page file in the speechdrop.

• Rebuttals are SO important and are where good speakers shine. Judge instruction is really important and I vote on it 90% of the time.

• I don’t like seeing you read off your computer in rebuttals. If you use it to write notes down on, thats fine, but please make eye contact with me it’s SO MUCH more persuasive.

• I am very expressive. Use this to your advantage.

• I will know you read my paradigm when you walk into the room and tell me happy birthday (it is not my birthday but reading paradigms is really important and I like when teams can prove to me that they did).

• CP’s don’t need to solve the impact of the aff, but they must be more beneficial than the alt for me to vote on them.

• I hate the arguments on preferring evidence for relevancy when there’s a tiny difference (aka less than 5-10 years) and I will never vote on it. Unless there was some major event that would have significantly changed a lot about your ev (like an econ DA from pre-2020), please don't make this argument.

• Love a good theory debate. The novice packet gives you your evidence – what analytical arguments can you make? How can you use those to your advantage? The caveat is that if you're bringing something up, I expect you to extend it through the round and be able to defend/define it. Don't take args from your advanced kids without understanding them!

PLEASE don't:

• Run a K if you don't know the literature or understand the alt

• Take prep before CX

• Take prep in the middle of the neg block

• Ask stupid CX questions

• Lie

• Run T without all components

• Not use all your speech time

Things I like:

• Using CX to set up arguments for the next speech/speeches

• Using all your prep

• T debates (I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me a different way to vote and why)

Things that will get you extra speaker points: **don’t feel pressured to work these in, I just think it’s funny when people can make it work

• Being funny (as long as it’s appropriate)

• References to Grey’s Anatomy

• References to Taylor Swift

Basically, as long as you're both respectful and creating clash, I have no preference on what arguments you run. If you have any more questions please don’t be afraid to ask!

shawnee mission south '23, university of southern california ‘27

mcbradleydebate@gmail.com

i endorse doing line by line and minimizing reliance on the document in front of you to give your final rebuttal.

new rule: if you ask for a marked copy when less than 3 cards were marked and/ or have to clarify what ev was read without taking cx or prep, your speaks ceiling is a 27.

ld:

if tricks, no.

if phil, definitely not the best.

if anything else, yes.

if aff, t does not go before case in the 1ar.

He/Him

3rd year debater at Blue Valley SouthWest

Add me to the email chain: Aidencanon5@gmail.com

--

Novice Debate

--

Top-level

I'm pretty tech over truth, if you explain an argument well, I will give it a lot more weight than a bunch of underdeveloped arguments. I've ran everything from politics to k-affs so just run what you are comfortable with.

I will only evaluate arguments that you extend into the 2nd rebuttal, If you don't extend the parts of the ADV, DA, CP, K, T, or whatever argument you are running, I will have a very hard time voting for it.

Please read a plan text with your 1ACs and CPs (unless it is a K aff then you're fine ig) otherwise I won't evaluate any solvency for your impacts

Please don't read half your 1AC in the 1AC and then read the rest of it in the 2AC, I really don't want to evaluate it, especially because it just feels like you're trying to avoid clashing with the other team.

In a policy round, I will always vote for the team that presents the best potential world, tell my why the aff or neg world is better or worse than the squo and I will have a very easy time voting for you.

Michelle Canon

If you are using email chains: michellecanon8@hotmail.com Please include me so I can view cards if needed.

Experience: 4 years of high school debate at Truman High School (Independence, MO) 1987-1991; qualified to NFL Nationals 1991 Team CX Debate- Awarded Overall Speaker award 5th place; Qualified to Nationals in '90 and '91 in Original Oratory.

4 Year Collegiate Debate- William Jewell College (Liberty, MO) Debated CEDA 1991-1995; Placed at CEDA Nationals 1994 (I think we dropped in quarters? it's been a hot minute :D), 1995 Season I helped coach Novice as my partner had graduated.

General Preferences:(this is focused on Novice Debate)

I have seen a lot of topics over the years and have judged fairly routinely. My favorite debates provide direct clash and there is a cohesive approach from both teammates. I want to see that you are thinking through your team's approach and your arguments complement each other. The 2AR and 2NR are the crystalizing rebuttals and I want impact calc on how the arguments are weighed out.

I am a flow judge, so I want a road map on how many off-case and what areas of case you want you to signpost arguments applied on the flow. I love structure- I understand that's not the trend so please emphasize your tag lines, if you are reading quickly. I flow off of what you say, and I expect both teams to flow off of what is said in the round, not off of exchanged documents. I will always prefer quality over quantity. I get very frustrated when both teams read blocks quickly and don’t slow down for main points. I used to speak fast but I haven’t done it in a long time so please keep it reasonable. I expect you to fill all your time, and I expect quality arguments. I see speed as a necessity in certain speeches and arguments, but only go as fast as you can be clear, if no one understands what you're saying it's not going on the flow and won't be weighed in my decision. Do not choose speed over quality. Condense down and make a solid argument.

I will vote on almost any developed argument that is extended through the entire debate. If the argument is case side and it takes out a stock issue that will warrant a negative ballot. Case side you have to develop the argument and it has to be extended in rebuttals and weighed by 2NR. I will not weigh anything that is not extended into rebuttals. Of course, no new arguments initiated in rebuttals.

T-I appreciate a good T debate and will vote on it if it is set up as an off-case and developed (meaning analysis, definition, clear stated violation) and extended. I will vote Neg on T if the affirmative drops it- but the negative has to extend it and go for it.

I was a 2N my entire time debating - I love a well-developed Disad, I expect the shell to be run in the 1NC and I expect 2N to set up shop and blow it up if that's what you are going for in the debate. Please don't run contradictory DA's. Keep your story clean and extend the full disad. If you spend all your time proving a link and internal link but fail to have clear impact scenario in your 2NC then you aren't winning as big of an argument as you could.

CP-I like counter plans as well for a policy debate. Make sure they are mutually exclusive, competitive, non-topical and net the highest impacts. The only counterplans I'm not a fan of is the big generic theoretical counterplans like an Anarchy counterplan. I see that as a waste of time. I'd rather you make intelligent arguments then read a big generic CP- if this is what you want to go for make sure you develop the argument clean and clear with a more specific creative spin to get my vote here.

K- I see K (at the novice level) a pretty non-persuasive argument. I think it detracts from having a strong debate and becomes more about gaming the round (again at the Novice level) vs debating the topic. That being said, if you are running a more creative affirmative trying to catch negatives off-base, then I'm willing to consider K's and other theoretical arguments more heavily to provide some negative ground. I ran plenty of crazy cases so I get it, but that will open up the flexibility on links and more theoretical arguments. If there is clear negative ground, it's going to be hard to get me to vote on K. And for goodness sakes, if you are running a K over language or protection of specific rights- please don't violate your own K during the round with your own discourse. I have never heard an affirmative K, so if you are running it you better know it inside and out and be able to clearly explain it- and please know I really don't want to go here for a novice debate.

Please don't make this competitive reading where each team reads their own briefs. There needs to be direct clash- that is what debate is about. Final rebuttals should write the ballot on what is the most significant in the debate and weigh out the debate.

I want to see courteous, respectful, intelligent debates. I don't see debate as a personal argument, so please don't take it there. I will give poor speaks for anyone rude, condescending or overly disruptive.

If we can get some laughs in the debate and have positive fun I'll always reward with higher speaks.

Hi ! I am Kiley Chartrand and I am a junior in high school. This is my third year in debate. I love analytical over cards any day. Eye contact is a big must for me to put you as the first speaker. Biggest reminder is to talk to me, not to each other. This is about learning, not winning ! Be nice to each other you both are people with emotions.

(feel free to email me about questions !)

Brett Cranor

bvsw '23

ku '27

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com+ bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

1--Read whatever. I'm open to functionally everything. Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable. I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The place where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class tbh) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

I'm a fourth-year debater and Senior at SME. I've judged a couple of times but I've debated more, so I'm able to follow most arguments made in-round. I don't like Ks at all but I understand how they work, however, I will weigh them less heavily compared to on-case stuff along with normal off-case stuff like disads, counterplans etc.

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

• Retired teacher of 40 years, the past 15 years offering assistance at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, Kansas
• “Yes” – old enough to be your grandparent (and then some maybe); and for those in the know, "Yes" -- I dodrive the school bussesthat get us from the school to tournaments, etc.
• I have re-developed -- for me -- a genuine enjoyment of judging in recent years, and I strive to be as fair as possible.
• I hope that my love for all things speech and debate has been evident throughout these so many decades of involvement with these activities.

FORENSICS: If possible, I PREFER PUBLIC ADDRESS EVENTS

I do enjoy listening to and evaluating speech rounds. More often than not, rounds are close and final rankings (especially when points are not awarded) do not show how close some rounds are.

When I finally resolve rounds, I place a premium on those that speak clearly, are organized, and convince me that they care about what they are talking about. In all Public Address events, speakers make choices and thus should "sell" those messages because they do care.

Extemp ...I expect to hear a very well organized speech, with clear analysis and, in the end, support for assertions made. The most important component of extemp is that the speaker provides his or her answer to the question posed. If no answer is clearly provided, and explained, I will not typically rank that speaker very high in the round. Additionally, I do listen for sources and appropriate citations. I am pretty sure I believe that the source — if quoted or paraphrased — provides you a basis for most (if not all) your internal conclusions. I don’t count sources per se, but I expect there to benumeroussources cited and incorporated into your assertions, analysis, and conclusions.

Oratory ...should be presented with some passion, you should really be selling me your message and there should be some semblance of speaking from the heart present. In some ways, I am a traditionalist and prefer the oratory that sets out to identify a problem and then offers me solutions for that problem. I understand that today a lot of oratory is “dramatic” in its presentational form, but this is often over-killed and does not impress me.

Informative ...should likewise be presented in a way that makes the audience truly believe you care about the topic selected. Organization is very important . . . and internal analysis and development is critical to ultimate success. If visual aids are a component of the speech, I need to be able to see them, and they should support the message. Visual aids for mere glitz do not always make the point the speaker desires, AND too many visuals actually get in the way of the good speech.

Impromptu ...a lot depends on the topic area and topic chosen. I do not believe that impromptu is stand up comedy, but do appreciate a speaker that can present his/her/their speech in a conversational manner during which the speaker is enjoying themselves. Not to be forgotten, the better organized speech will be highly regarded by this evaluator.

In all of the above events, I do believe that movement must be natural and supportive of the speech. Movement offers needed transitional support, and too much movement really hurts the overall effort. Additionally, I believe that too many gestures do more harm than good in that they just distract from the message. Use gestures to reinforce your message AND make them as natural and spontaneous as possible. Finally, your delivery needs to be clearly presented so that you are heard AND understood. As is sometimes difficult for the debater to understand, in the Public Address events "Speed TRULY Kills" . . . and conversational styles more often prevail than not.

I hope that each entry in a speech event enjoys his/her/their presentations. "Fun" may not be the exact word I am looking for, but you can truly tell when the speaker is in the communicative zone . . . and not just going through the motions.

ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE:

Although, "Yes," I prefer judging Public Address events . . . but when asked to evaluate interp or acting events, I will strive to do my very best. It is not that I can't, it is just that I prefer the speech events.

Thus, REGARDING JUDGING Interp Rounds:

I have worked with interp students over the years. Fortunately, I have always been in a situation where there was a unique interp coach available as well.

When asked what I would like in interp . . . I think it comes down to the following:

1. I look for a piece that is presented in an interesting manner. The content needs to flow and the cutting needs to make sense.
2. I look for consistency of characters. Are they believable? Are they relatively easy to follow throughout the presentation.
3. I look for a presentation where the combination of facial expressions, gestures, and vocal development blends together to provide believable characters.
4. I am not opposed to movement, but I prefer that the presentation be confined to a limited area. In a sense, I still believe that except for Duo, these are INTERPRETATION events, and the primary presentation should be focused and confined to a small area in front of one's audience.
5. A note about PRO/POE/POI. After judging at nationals last two years ago, I had an epiphany. This really regards the use of your notebook as a prop. I still hope that the notebook is somehow incorporated to suggest you are "reading" material, but I also understand and accept the notebook as a potential prop to be used during your performance.
6. In the end, I believe I know what I like, and I will rank student performances accordingly; and when the situation presents itself, I will try to explain why I ranked students as I did. Please understand that I know with 100% accuracy that my views and another judge’s views may not coincide. And that is OK by me! It is, in part, the reason why we have multiple judges in a round.
7. AND in situations where we rank performances without any other type of evaluation (like points), I hope that all competitors understand that the section will no doubt have numerous very, very good performances, yet I have no option to give a tie, I must rank top to bottom. This is the way it is! I can only promise performers that I will try to do my very best in making my final ranking decisions.

Good luck! The best to you in your future forensic endeavors! I truly hope you enjoy yourself during your presentation!

email chain - um202105@umich.edu

i voted neg in the demo debate so that will prob tell you how good of a judge I am

ill prob think the 2ar won the debate

i'm a devout Christian woman so if you say a prayer in your final rebuttals you get a 30

if you read a card I cut I will think your good and also prob give you a 30

i don't really like men so youll prob get a 25 just for that tbh - UNLESS ... venmo - @Jessica-Dickey-31

15 CEILING if your a white man - the only way to remedy your illness is to dedicate 30 seconds of your final rebuttal to speaking about how Black women positively impact your life

women - pls be extremely aggressive and talk over all men in the round - regardless the low is a 29

jokes over truth over tech

Scorpio men, Gemini men, leo men, brown boys who read pess - auto L

I've made it infinitely more fair for all minorities so no K affs or auto L

Finally, Its a brat summer so obv one song from Charli xcx's 'brat' must be in your first constructive for me to even think about flowing---stephen pipkin

Hello all, my name is Maddie (she/her). Add me to the email chain: madeline.doyle0628@gmail.com

Shawnee Mission East '24

University of Kansas '28

Feel free to contact me with questions about the round, I am more than happy to give more in-depth feedback.

I debated competitively for 3 years in high school.

You can go fast in front of me, I don't care just make sure you're clear. I will clear you if you are not. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't. Also- if your opponents don't want you to spread, please don't. I want to make the debate space as friendly as possible, and that starts with basic kindness and consideration.

TL;DR:

-I'm very tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I went for cc good a lot my senior year if that tells you anything.

-If you are being strategic and playing the game, you are more likely to win.

-I'd like to see more judge instruction, I don't see this enough. Write my ballot for me.

-I will default to policymaking, if you want different, you have to tell me.

Flow: Off-time roadmaps please, for ALL speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in. Try and keep the flow relatively clean, although I know this can be hard. If you decide to skip around I might be salty, but I won't vote you down for it. Just signpost and let me know what you are responding to.

Args: DO NOT drop a crucial argument, especially if you're aff. I presume neg. I am fine with anything that you run. Be able to answer T. I honestly will vote on anything. I love impact turns I think they are incredibly strategic and most people are really bad at answering them.

CPs: I will vote on any CP. I'm good with competition debates just make sure you give clear warrants. I went for POI a lot in high school so if you cook up a nice competition text I will like you. 2NC CPs are fine, just make sure you can justify it. I will judge-kick the CP if you tell me to.

DAs: These are good. Make sure you extend all parts of the DA. I like turns-case, I think it is something that should be utilized more. Please for the love of god do impact calc.

Topicality: I love T. I think that when done well it serves its purpose. Make sure you are specific with your impacts to T, don't just give me some internal links and say that's an impact, I see this too much. Side note- I think that the topic this year has great T ground for most of the novice affs, so if you haven't considered running it, I would give it a try sometime.

Ks: I am somewhat familiar with the lit bases. It never hurts to explain the thesis of the K and the theory of power tho. Your alt can be something funny, but you have to make it make sense and give it some sort of solvency. I will judge kick the alt if you tell me to. I'm comfortable voting on just FW.

Theory: I think theory debates are fine. Theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I am undecided about condo. I went for it on the aff in high school and responded to it on the neg (I was both a 2A and 2N) and I think it’s a valid argument. Make sure you analyze your theory argument heavily because I want to know that you understand what you are running. I honestly prefer substance debates more, but I will vote on most theory arguments if they are logical.

Neg v K: I prefer fairness as an impact but I will vote for clash. I think that T is a prior question. I am good to have in the back for presumption. I operate on an offense-defense paradigm here.

K v K: This is always a fun debate. Perms are good for aff. Please analyze the cards more here, as I don't think you can over-analyze K cards. Specific links are amaze.

Don't forget to have fun!

SMS'23, KU'27

brooklynnjhato@gmail.com

she/her

General

My debate back round is largely critical. Debate the way you've invested. Warranted analysis, quality research, flowing, intentional cx, and ample judge instruction in the context of what your strategy in the debate is! Yes, tech over truth, truth being the tie breaker when both team are both up on the tech portion. Debate is a game, with the debaters using these statures of how to evaluate said game that I said above. An offensive defense paradigm on how/why you've justified your departure from the status squo. Love a good case debate throw down, I flow straight down just tell me what to do and we're good. Not good for a policy throw down.

_____________________________________________________

Assume I'm not reading ev during the debate. Debate is a communicative activity, leave pen time. Evidence quality is good, and can be informed by/look very different, this has value. Disclosure is necessary, I'm v sympathetic to disclosure args. Clipping/unethical card cutting is an L. CX time being used for prep will negatively impact your speaks.

Policy v K

You should probably be able to weigh the plan/it's consequences. fw is at the top of my flow. Quality line by line "our threats are real/extinction outweighs" to set up that slam dunk link turn + alt does nothing is good. If the neg has not isolated a mechanism to resolve 2nr impacts, i'll be pretty liberal to a "you went for a non UQ DA...here's the perm" 2ar.

K v policy

Link specificity is good. I would prefer a "alt solves the links" over a "our research project/fw interp solves our own offense" 2nr but do you. Most familiar with anti-blackness, cap, set col arguments. Over explaining is key, buzzwords don't win debates. Fw/links should out frame aff impacts while you tell me how your judge instruction arguments implicates my flow and vision in round. Not good for pomo. The best K debaters go for the K and still make sure to obliterate the case debate so there's no sneaky 2ars.

_____________________________________________________

Planeless Affs:

I believe affs should be in the direction/relevant to the topic. I should have a clear articulation of what the aff does, who/what it's good for, and why the ballot is necessary. Your performance should not be abandoned in the middle of the debate/you didn't make it important. Going for the impact turn is good, going for the counter interp plus "we have defense to your model, you don't" is great!

FW:

The TVA is gas and the aff answers are probably trash. The SSD/Stasis good 2nr's good. I don't evaluate fairness as "you broke nsda rules catch an L" but "if competition/fairness is true, only a universal stasis point is able to determine contestable debates that are predictable [clash args]" Why is your model good, no case debating in the 2NR is probably going to be an L.

Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.

Policy:

Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...

Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.

Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)

Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.

Forensics:

I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress

What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.

Overall:

The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

bvsw '24

she/her

put me on the email chain- maggie.howerton@gmail.com

Alix Kunkle — Head Coach at Spring Hill High School

kunklea@usd230.org — Add me to your chain, please.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

If evidence sharing is going to be more than a few seconds, evidence sharing should be done as prep. In the age of technology, we should be able to exchange evidence in a timely manner without it delaying the round. Please don't abuse your time.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

Hello! My name is Bella Landes. I've debated for Lawrence High for 3 years (open), plus forensics for two.

Currently a senior. University of Kansas '27

My pronouns are she/her.

This is fairly long, but taking a few minutes prior to your round to read over my opinions may help earn my ballot! Of course, the key things will be distinguished if you are in a bit of a rush.

TL:DR: email chain/speechdrop yes, read whatever, and don't be a jerk.

Generalities

• Email chains or SpeechDrop is 100% okay with me. I would love to have the docs on hand, especially if you plan to speed through them. For the love of god though, if you’re using SpeechDrop, put the code on the board. It makes everyone’s lives easier.

My email is landesbella@gmail.com

• If you request more feedback than what’s on the ballot, then feel free to send me an email after the round and I will do my best to get back to you!

• Providing a roadmap would be awesome! In a way, it proves to me that your case is at least somewhat organized.

• I am cool with any speed, but provided that this is a novice round a slower speed may be a bit more wise. That is just my opinion though. Also, please be a bit clear. I understand if you stutter a bit or you are a bit anxious, I have anxiety myself and I will do my best to accommodate it.

• Also note, if it is not spoken out loud, I will not be flowing it. By this, I mean that if you have extra cards in your speech doc that never got read and you bring it up in the rebuttal, I won't be counting it since you never read it and it might technically be considered bringing in new evidence which is not allowed in the rebuttals.

• Quick little tip, I absolutely love impact calc during the rebuttals.

• Eye contact throughout the speech is nice. I personally will not get hugely onto you about it, I have really bad social anxiety so I tend to avoid it myself. However, it is well known that it tends to be more persuasive, you should note that.

• I absolutely love a good bit of humor in a speech. Just make sure it is tasteful and not offensive in any form. Dark humor belongs on Reddit or 4chan, not a debate round.

What WILL NOT win my ballot

• I do not mind open CX, but if the non-speaking partner is dominating the entire CX I will be noting this on my ballot.

• As with many judges that you will encounter throughout your debate career, I value civility and kindness throughout the debate. I appreciate and enjoy watching a clash during a round, but when it crosses the line and becomes uncivil then I will have an issue.

• With that being said, do not be TRASH please! (Transphobic, Racist, Ableist, Sexist, Homophobic, etc.), or else I can guarantee that you will not be winning my ballot.

• Do not "clip" cards please, AKA misuse/misrepresent the evidence. I am 99% sure it breaks the rules and it is unfair. Please do not go that route, at least try.

• BIG THING: If I cannot understand you at all, I will not be flowing most likely. Please look up at me every now and then for that reason, plus, it is important to be making eye contact with whomever you are speaking to anyways. Me not flowing is a great sign for you to slow down.

• Please provide links for your cases, by that I mean how your argument connects to the opposing team's case. I am not a fan of flowing without you telling what you're linking to. Since this is a novice round, I will be more lenient on this, but this is a very useful and necessary thing to do in your future rounds

• Unlinked Ks. I mean like ones what just don't link at all. I get it, whatever you are saying is important. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LINK IT WELL. Otherwise I'm voting no. I don't like being manipulated into a corner to vote a certain way because the affirmative makes the negative look a certain way and makes me support an argument that isn't even topical

How I vote

I do not necessarily have an established system since this is my first time ever judging, but I think the main thing for me is providing sufficient answers for most if not all arguments.

Bonus points for me

• I am a massive fan of Fallout, if you make a bit of a remark regarding that you will definitely catch my poor attention span. I will not factor it into my decision for obvious reasons, but it will be noted on my ballot (in a good way).

^ using Fallout Universe stuff in your nuclear war impacts is a bit unoriginal but having it in there is a great touch!

• Putting Phoebe Bridgers references in literally anything. I will automatically think you are really rad. "Yeah, I guess the end is here".

Congratulations on making it this far and reading my (long) paradigm.

Hello my name Is Josh Little, this is my fourth year of debating and I absolutely love it. I have debated on the novice, JV, and open circuits. I have qualified for state every year so far and made it again for the last time senior year.

Novice Expectations:

I know many of you are just developing a basic knowledge of debate, so take a breath I'm not expecting the best from you. But do not just look down at your computer the entire time and read cards that I know you don't understand. Make eye contact, body language, thorough explanations, and try to sell me your case.

Case:

I have loved good case arguments since I was a novice and if you successfully prove that the affirmative can't solve, they have no inherency, or their advantages don't do what they say they do, I will have a much easier time voting for the negative.

DA's:

While I do love case arguments, you can't leave out reasons that the affirmative will be bad like disadvantages. DA's are key to prove that the affirmative does more harm than good. But I like plausible DA's. I will 100% vote for crazy impacts but if you shout in my face "nuke war" and "extinction" make sure you walk me through it. I have no problem with those impacts just make them realistic. Must protect uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If any of them fall I won't weigh the DA.

CP's:

Better chance of me voting on the CP if it can avoid the DA or if it has a super good net benefit. Prove to me the perm won't work. There are some crazy counter plans coming up so prove to me that your counter plan is worthy of my vote and the perm is not.

T:

I will vote on topicality... but it better darn good. Hint- if your reading T against a case list affirmative, well good luck. My threshold for T is high but if it is a cheeky affirmative that is blatantly untopical I will actually be disappointed if you don't run T against it.

BVSW '24

amyblloyd6@gmail.com

Hello,

I am the Assistant Debate Coach at Leavenworth High School.

I'm a pretty relaxed judge when it comes to preferences over what you're going to run.

Give an off time road map so me and the other people in the room know the order of your speech.

I find CX one of the most important parts of the debate so try not to secede time. Ask pressing questions to poke holes and expose their arguments. As for the AFF, make sure you know the answers rather than contradict yourself and have the NEG reveal you don't know what you're talking about. Try not to ask basic questions, such as definitions, if they seem to understand their case as it wastes time.

I'm fine with spreading, just remember to share your speech with me so I am able to follow along efficiently. Speak with confidence and energy in your voice as it brings out the passion in your arguments.

Follow all the rules from the NSDA handbook and also KSHSAA Speech and Debate handbook. If your opponents are breaking the rules, address it.

Running T's and K's are good, just make sure they are effective and not just something of a last resort.

Make sure to address all arguments. A lot of times with novices I see them drop arguments and it is usually what loses them the round.

Have fun and be respectful to each other. This is an educational experience and nobody should be demoralized because of bullying during a round.

If you have any questions for me about my paradigm, just ask me before the round begins!

dustin.lopez@lvpioneers.org

Hi! My name is Sophia and I am a debater at Shawnee Mission East.

Overall:

• Eye contact is key. Please remember to look up during your speeches, don't just read off your computer. I like when people explain arguments in their own words.
• As far as arguments are concerned, anything is fair game. (Side note: if you're going to argue recency of a few years, and it's about something inconsequential, don't bother. I won't factor that into voting.)
• As a debater myself, I am not a huge fan of kritiks. That being said, I will listen and try to follow as best I can.
• I am okay with speed as long as I can understand what you're saying.
• If you cut cards for time, please make that clear.
• When the timer goes off, finish your sentence and wrap up. I will give you a 10-second grace period, and then I will stop listening. 
• Don't be mean during cross-ex. You're more than welcome to be assertive, but be polite about it.
  
• If you don't want to disclose, don't, but not much is gained by not disclosing.
• My favorite part of a debate is the rebuttals. This is really where your arguments are solidified. I am a firm believer that rebuttals make or break your case.
• Be sure to tell me exactly why I should vote in your favor.

Finally, please remember that whether you win or lose, it's important to be polite to everyone. If you are rude, don't wonder why I voted for the other team.

My email is sophia.e.mb31@gmail.com. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about my decision or want more feedback!

Senior at BVW

I prefer Speechdrop (cringe ik), but you can add me to the email chain nashyosman@gmail.com

-Don't be rude, you will lose speaks for this, if it gets bad I will let you know

-tech>truth, as long as tech has warrant and impact

- I strongly believe the judge needs to adapt to the round, not the other way around(see what I did there :D), so run whatever you want as long as it's within reason.

- Im not gonna default to judge kick unless told

- IMPACT CALC is good

- If you are a novice, focus on the basics, keeping the debate simple is probably your best chance of winning the round.

-Don't steal prep

-Don't abuse speed, especially in novice/lay rounds

- I can handle speed(hopefully), if I can't understand you while spreading I will say clear

-If you have any questions before the round ask me, if I am allowed to give feedback post-round I will give it if you ask me to. If not, then just email me and I will try to respond.

-Have fun, don't stress(you can be competitive and serious without stressing)

-I like jokes, + speaker points if you reference games or sports

CASE-

-Extend args with a claim and warrant

-Explaining your impacts is important.

-I number my args on the flow

-I heavily prioritize clash in these rounds actually responding to the other team's arguments and proving them wrong while proving why you are right are two things that are essential to case debate.

KRITIK-

-Experience with the basic K's(set col, cap, security, cyber) and a little neolib.

-K's are only getting more popular, even in novice, explain the K clearly to win.

-Framework would be nice if you are a novice, this is basically just telling the judge how to evaluate the K and the impacts.

-I think you need a general link to the aff on the K in order to win, whether the link is specific or not only matters as much as it you tell me it does but please have a link.

K-AFF

I would advise against this kind of argument if you are a novice. If not, TVA is key vs FW, and you need to explain how voting aff will solve your impacts.

DA-

- Weighing impacts is key to win, defend your impacts while providing offense on the other team's impacts.

- Link/Impact turns are underrated

CP-

-Have a plan text

-Have a solvency mechanism

T

-I default to comparing interps.

-These debates are hard to judge so being really specific and using examples( I like examples about what the world would look like without X or what debate would look like with X and what would happen as a result

Theory-

-I will only reject the arg if you win a Theory arg but if you are doing Condo on aff, this is a reason to reject the team.

-If you want to do theory args in the rebuttals, you have to be able to explain your arguments well.

-

shawnee mission east '25

she/her

lucy.pace@icloud.com

CAMP PHILOSOPHY---um202232@umich.edu--- please explain the round in fortnite terms

no plan no win. condo is good, the more the better. if you give me a redbull/another fun drink (probably) auto W. also if you arent clear i will clear you and probably not flow bc it'll be too hard. send ur analytics. none of the below stuff applies i am TRUTH>>>>TECH.

general thoughts

tech>truth. do what you want. go fast if you can be clear. i flow on paper so slow down on theory, perms, and framework. i want to see novice debates that have clear extensions of arguments and i want to see debaters that are funny and demonstrate that they have thought about their arguments.

aff---do what you want. i have read exclusively big stick policy affs in high school.

da---generic links or specific idc. affs should impact turn das more often

cp---i lean aff on delay and consult and am probably neg leaning on other stuff? idk. condo is good until its not

k---i've 'read' cap, set col, militarism, and fem ir. i was the 1n in most of these debates so don't assume i have a perfect understanding of the literature. i do not feel good in my ability to judge pomo or other high theory ks.

t---meh

other---impact turns are good. be nice and be funny for high speaks. for novices, my average for speaks is probably about a 28.5 ngl. if you send analytics ill give you higher speaks!

final---my opinions of debate have been shaped primarily by my coaches jacob wilkus and owen williams so if this is too short read their paradigms and that is the ideal judge i would want to be! and yes chris pace is my dad

bvsw '24

he/him

add me to the email chain --- raghupenu10@gmail.com

she/her

debated @ lawrence free state, debating @ the university of kansas, coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow

yes email chain: aaronjpersinger@gmail.com

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than most technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

hey yall :)

my name is eli (they/he)

3yr debater - free state high school '25

TL:DR

impact calc is a must, be nice, roadmaps/signpost pls, don't be a robot, i believe in you!!!

general statements

idrc about email chain or speechdrop, please just add me to it - eli.roust@gmail.com

please be nice - everyone around you (including yourself) is trying to learn

quality > quantity

please have analytics it shows me you know what's going on - cards are for constructives

use all of your time during a speech, there's always something more you can say

please give me a roadmap and signpost - i’m learning along with y’all

look at me when speaking :) i'm not super expressive but i'm still listening to you

i find it pretty cool when you can give a rebuttal off of flows only (i won't dock points if you don't i just think it makes you look more sure of yourself)

i will listen to whatever but it is your job to explain to me why your argument matters, don't expect me to do that work for you

i dont shake hands, if you and your opponents want to that's fine, but i will not

if you are rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc i will immediately vote for the other team, give you the 3 and 4, and talk to your coach - this will not be tolerated.

i believe in you and i want you to succeed. in no way am i here to harp on every little thing you screw up, i just want to see you use your brain

"be smart, have fun, and if you had to pick, choose to have fun" -LFS Debate

i will try to put as many comments as i can on the ballot, but feel free to email me with questions!

arg preferences

i do KDC debate so i can listen to you spread but i'd really rather not

AFF:

• Please do overviews of your case in EVERY speech, even if nothing else in the debate is about case, you still extend it and that's key
• Keep your advantages and solvency straight as best as possible - makes things easier for me which means I can judge better
• 1ARs are my favorite speech by far - a great one is amazing to watch/feels good after you give it
• Huge pet peeve if you don't know what your aff is about (you should know this!!)
• Don't lie in the 2AR - that's a quick route to the loss, i do flow yk

DAs:

• DAs are great. That's it. Make sure you have every part of the DA and extend each part and I'm good
• Link debates are underutilized - DA debates more often than not come down to the impact and forget about the link. you disprove the link, there is no impact to worry about

CPs:

• Ngl, I'm not a fan of CP's. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I won't vote for one (i have in the past), it's just not an argument i like to run. This does mean that you need to really explain why the CP is important.

T:

• Easy wins: the aff is blatantly untopical, someone drops t, no defense/offense (aka the obvious things)
• If you're going for T, it should be the entire 2NR, otherwise you have not done enough work on it

Ks:

• I am not a k-debater, but I have the knowledge to understand most. I've only run a couple (militarism, Nietzsche, security, imperialism)
• Please slow down on these!!

Theory:

• If someone reads theory, no matter what it is, you have to respond
• I will vote on theory

Impact Calc:

• THIS IS A MUST
• Keep all 3 parts - timeframe, magnitude, and probability - whether or not you say those specific words doesn't matter but all 3 arguments have to be there

Judge Instruction:

• Take the assumption that I'm a parent judge who knows what the technical terms mean
• If you tell me how to vote in the debate, I'm more likely to vote for you!!

harvinsandhubvsw@gmail.com

????????????I am mostly Tabula Rasa; however, some hard preconceptions I do have are that I largely view the 1AC as an object of research and my role as the judge as an educator.

I love Ks and will most likely be familiar with your litbase (when I debated I mainly went for Nietzsche, Warren, Skirshmire, Bifo, Bataille, and Sexton) but I still have a higher threshold of contextualization.????????????

bvw 24

aryashah0916@gmail.com

BVSW '24

Michigan '28

rishishetty@gmail.com

bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

TL;DR

Tech > Truth in all instances. Debaters work hard for tournaments and it seems disingenuous for judges to deprive them of that with their personal biases. I've been on both sides of most debate arguments from race Ks to spark, so don't try and over-adapt to what you might think I want to hear, and just go for what you do best. The below are personal biases that I hold, but all are easily overcome by technical debating.

Topicality vs K Affs

When evenly debated, I think that the negative should win these debates every single time. I've gone for both clash and fairness against k affs, and I think that while fairness is more true as an impact, both have their own uses. Fairness is most strategic when going for ballot proximity arguments/making the debate solely about what happened in one debate, while clash really only makes sense in the context of models. With that said, I read a K aff for all my junior year and some of my senior year and have spent substantial amounts of my free time thinking of arguments for both sides of these debates, so I'm by no means a "framework hack".

I think that the best way to go about answering topicality is impact turning the presentation of it i.e a K of why the neg suggesting that "competition overcodes decision-making" is racialized or why imposing legal definitions is psychically exclusive of minority populations. Additionally, aff teams should be making ballot proximity arguments to try and get around clash arguments. With this strategy though, there are two huge things you need to prepare to beat.

1. Stop the round and take it to tabroom if we did something racist
2. The ballot PIC argument that says that the judge can agree with the entirety of the substance of the aff while voting neg to preserve fairness

Inversely, I also think that those two are often the most persuasive and strategic answers to these types of impact turns (ones that focus on remedying racial grievance in specific debates).

Although I have a personal preference for the in round impact turn, I'm also equally good for a counterinterp and models based impact turn.

Policy Affs vs Ks

I spent my whole junior year going for race Ks so I appreciate the effort that debaters put into K arguments.

I think the most strategic version of the K on the negative is one that moots the aff. Fiated alternatives and links to the plan often lose to perm do both.

Most of my thoughts for T vs K affs apply here when it comes to impact calculus---either go for an in round impact or one about models---I'm honestly not sure if there really is an in between in these debates but if there is it probably sucks. If going for clash, you should be straight turning neg offense, and if going for fairness, you should be making arguments about why its an intrinsic good.

I think that aff teams should be willing to go for impact turns as justifications for their scholarship more often. Interventions good, cap good, heg good, or even just winning that "consequences determine ethics" are all underrated and underused strategies in my opinion. Moreover, you shouldn't be afraid to impact turn debating about the K in the first place. My senior year, I went for "debating about race bad" + "other venues solve" various times, and I think that it's an undervalued strategy.

I'll do my best to adjudicate K arguments of all types but I've only ever gone for race Ks so I'm probably going to be lost if you go for a postmodern or psychoanalytic critique, whatever that means.

Counterplan Competition

Aside from framework, this is the other part of debate that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Competition is something that took me a lot of time and effort to understand as a debater, so I respect debaters who show adequate understandings of it a lot and I'll reward your speaks. I went for process counterplans a lot my senior year, and they were my favorite argument to develop over the year.

I personally think that counterplans probably only need to be functionally competitive, not because I identify as a neg terrorist (most of the time), but rather because I think that when evenly debated, textual competition is indefensible. However, I've had to defend textual + functional competition in the past, and I'm equally good for both (textually only, however, is an uphill technical battle regardless of personal bias).

The thing that makes these debates difficult to adjudicate is impact calculus. A lot of the time, aff ground and neg flex are sort of asserted to outweigh the other, but that makes for more frustrating decisions rooted in personal bias. Instead, debaters should treat these debates and any other theory debate as you would a DA + Case debate. You need defense and turns case to effectively outweigh. Think of reasons why your interp solves the others offense sufficiently, why a worsening of your impact would cause theirs, etc.

The neg should go for arbitrariness against textual competition, as well as other non-resolutional theory arguments.

I think that one important thing that both aff and neg teams should do more is establish uniqueness for their respective impacts. For example, if presented with a 100% risk aff ground impact and 100% risk neg flex impact, the tiebreaker could be that it's impossible to be aff in the status quo because the block is overpowered or that its impossible to be neg in the status quo because the topic sucks.

DAs

I don't really have any unorthodox thoughts about disads. I think that try or die is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, but it's not always in the right context. Try or die means extinction is inevitable in the squo, and the plan/CP/squo has some risk of solving that, and so (at the risk of sounding circular), it's "try or die" aff or neg to prevent said impact. For example, if the neg goes for a DA and case but only says "alt causes to warming" in the 2NR but concedes warming will cause extinction, then it's probably auto aff if the DA impact is any non-zero amount lower than 100%. Similarly, if the aff drops an internal to a process counterplan and only extends a deficit, it's try or die neg because extinction is inevitable in the squo.

If you're going for a link turn in the 2AR, you need to answer uniqueness, or else a non-zero risk of a link probably outweighs. For example, if you're straight turning the economy DA; if a recession is already being averted in the status quo and the plan boosts business confidence/growth, that could maybe be good but it would be devastating if the aff had some possibility of causing a recession, especially when there's already not going to be one. Another example is the politics DA; if the bill is already passing in the squo, who cares if the plan speeds up passage?

If the 2NR wins turns case but the 2AR wins uniqueness (i.e 2NR wins that recessions cause warming but the 2AR wins that recession comes now), then absent further judge instruction, I'll automatically default that the impact the 2NR won 'turns case' on is irrelevant on presumption.

Random Thoughts

I'll always be the first to admit that I'm not the greatest flow. That doesn't mean that I'm a bad flow nor that I'll be totally lost in every debate, it just means that if you want me to get everything down, you can greatly increase those chances by just slowing down a little bit. This isn't because I'm unattentive or don't want to be there, but rather its because I'm not amazing at typing OR writing. Thus, the Kansan in me makes me greatly appreciate debaters who can technically out-debate their opponents at a more moderate pace.

For speaker points, my average is like a 28.5 and it'll go up or down from there based on how well you speak, how much you debate from the flow instead of spewing blocks, how enjoyable you are to judge, etc.

I'm honestly not opposed to universalizing SpeechDrop over email chains. It's more efficient, saves so much time, and the issue of not having docs later on is solved by just organizing a little bit.

I'm never going to stop a round unless I'm explicitly told to or someone is literally unable to tell me to stop it.

Warrants are fake; I won't reject a claim/argument because I think that it lacks grounding, but the more frivolous the grounding is, the less in depth of a response likely needed,

I think that plan text in a vacuum is true, and most rebuttals are based on misunderstandings of what it means.

I'll only look at the chain if I'm told to in the 2NR/2AR or if I'm so utterly unable to flow you that I need it.

I'll default to judge kick, but please remind me in the 2NC/2NR because its possible I forget.

Inserting re-highlightings is fine but I'm 100% open to contestations of the validity of those insertions.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

The 2N in me makes me pretty lenient on neg terror.

I'm fine for callouts/ad homs if you think you can out tech your opponent. As previously mentioned, I won't stop the round unless I'm asked to.

If you're going for an ev ethics violation, you can either stop the debate or keep it going and technically defend it and I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument. If you stop the debate, I'll send it to tab.

I'm probably not watching the doc so if you catch your opponent clipping you have to stop the round and show me a recording. If you don't stop the round, I'm not doing anything.

My debate thoughts are largely shaped by Ryan McFarland, Dr. Allie Chase, Kurt Fifelski, Brian Box, Sahil Jain, and Ishan Sharma.

I'm always down for a postround.

If any of this is unclear, just email me and I'm glad to answer questions.

I have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

Focus on clear extensions of evidence into the rebuttals

Say where you stop if you don't get through the entire speech or an entire card