I am a fairly inexperienced judge, but I am fairly familiar with the topic. My son is a debater and I have judged at the Olathe North and Paola tournaments.

I am not a big fan of speed, but I will make it obvious that I am not receiving what you are saying.

I will judge this round based on stock issues but if stock issues are extremely close, I will judge based on a policy maker paradigm.

I am not familiar with kritiks, so if you run one you will need to explain very in depth details.

Counterplans are acceptable, but they need to be very net beneficial

Be nice, have fun, debate well, and good luck!

she/her/hers

yes i want to be on the email chain->aryanadb8@gmail.com

former debater / current coach for OE

run what you like to run lole

everything is debatable to me hence lack of concrete debate opinions in this paradigm. i feel like debate has turned into debaters changing their entire strat to adhere to the arguments that the judge wants to hear which leads to boring and stale debates in the long run. i want y'all to have fun and be creative! (->as long as everyone feels safe and comfy in round and in the overall debate space ofc)

only three things i ask for the rounds i judge

1.) be clear pls!! clarity>speed!

2.) good args>lots of args if the two need to be mutually exclusive. i will defer from what i said earlier in paradigm for a sec: i am probably not the judge to go twenty off in front of. better debates have fleshed out and evolved args on each page instead of throwing a billion different arguments at the wall in the 1nc and seeing what sticks.

3.) be nice please! everyone is here at ungodly hours on a weekend. everyone is tired and hungry. being passive aggressive (or being actively aggressive lmao) during a round is so lame! having a massive ego and thinking you're better than everyone else at a tournament is so lame! if there is an actual reason you can't be cordial to your opponents in round then that is something to say to your judge, your coach or the tournament director.

I have judged a few times this year but am still learning. The main request I would have ... I understand it is important to provide as much information as possible and there are time limits, but please do not speak so fast that you can't be understood.

Be respectful and helpful to your competitors :)

HAVE FUN

I base judgement on the merits of debate. I keep an open mind and am not easily offended. The most important thing to me is showing respect for each other and the effort by each debater. The process should be civil and not be emotional.

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

NCFL specific: Speak loud and clear!!!!!! If you know you will want to see evidence set up an email chain before the debate starts. Also actually use it and be nice! Also clash evidence with each other!!!!

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school I only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD (all still pretty chill formats).

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon. If you are running a new K in front of me just be able to explain it well. You should be able to tell if I am confused.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it though

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like them lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 12 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I need you to explain clearly why each argument matters and why I should weigh one argument over another.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

I was not in Debate & Forensics in High School.

I am currently a Applied Behavioral Science and Psychology double-major at KU.

I have judged for two years for Olathe North and have a general understanding of Policy Debate.

Email Chain and questions can be sent to daniela.gd@outlook.com

(I prefer speech drop)

Overview:

I believe that debate provides a space for students to learn critical thinking, collaboration, research, and communication skills. This is NOT a space to attack others, but a space to challenge ideas and thoughts presented by the other team.

I believe that the best speeches are not the ones with the quickest speaking, or the most evidence, but the ones that have a clear structure and with fully-fleshed ideas. I want to see debaters that understand their evidence and are able to interpret and argue them, not just spew out a bunch of cards.

Clash:

Without clash, debate can’t exist. I want to see a clear understanding of the other side’s arguments. Address the arguments and their arguments against your side. There is no debate if there is no opposition.

Conclusion:

I want to see a space where students can learn. I want everyone to take each debate and find one thing they could improve on; one thing they learned for next time. This could be some new piece of evidence, new strategy, or new form of thinking. Debate allows for such strong skills in critical thinking that allow students to understand challenging arguments.

My decision will be based on the quality of your arguments as well as your ability to refute the other team’s points. Don’t just tell me they’re wrong, show me. Additionally, I want to see a solid understanding of the material.

Most importantly: HAVE FUN! Be confident!

You can ask me questions if you need to :)

Shawnee Mission East Debate & Forensics Coach (2 Years)

Shawnee Mission East Forensics Team (2017-2019)

NSDA DUO Semifinalist (2019)

NCFL DUO Semi, quarterfinalist (2018, 2019)

Racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic rhetoric will not be tolerated at all.

Ana-Sofia Lahovary (she/they)

SME '21

KU'24/5

Assistant Coach for Shawnee Mission East High School

lahovarya@gmail.com add me to the chain:) email > speech drop

About me: Currently a Sophomore at KU Honors studying Political Science and Global&International Studies with minors in Public Policy and Latin American&Carribean Studies. This is my second year coaching for Shawnee Mission East High School (graduated in '21). I debated at SME for four years and three on the TOC circuit. As for my argumentative history, I read both kritikal (Abolition, afro-pess, cap) and big stick policy affirmatives in high school and look forward to judging debates in both areas. I am also currently coaching teams who read both types of arguments.

Research interests: Russian foreign policy, Latin American Politics, and environmental policy.

Top Level: Be kind to each other and read whatever you like! I think condo and pics are generally good and theory-based arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Detailed impact calc is very important, contextualize it to the round. I value well-explained internal link chains, quirky disad/cp debates, and just overall efficient speeches. Judge instruction is important and use cross x to your advantage. Also just do what you want I do not have huge preferences, my job as a judge is to adapt.

Pet peeves: "3,2,1 starting NOW", talking over your partner, wasting time, not logging into wifi until round start time and then taking forever <3

• Let me know how I can be helpful to you, judging is a privilege.
• Evidence comparison and ethos are good and will be rewarded
• ORGANIZATION
• Clipping/cheating/any type of bigotry will guarantee a loss
• Disclosure is good (pls do)
• I will not vote on things that happen outside the round
• I like quirky disads and efficient impact calc
• Tech > Truth
• Pretty neg biased on most theory - reject the arg not the team
• Keep track of your own prep, although I will also keep track and keep teams accountable
• Framework should be contextualized to the round - don't just speed through general blocks
• Have fun! Debate is a super competitive space and I hope I can be helpful to you! Always happy to chat after! <3

T

• I'll default on competing interps
• TVA's = good
• predictability >

DAs

• good
• the more specific the links the better

CPs

• condo is good
• pics good process meh
• impacts of solvency deficits

Ks

• slay
• err on the side of over-explaining
• engage with them!! - generic blocks with no contextualization to the debate will not win you the round especially if your fw arg boils down "k affs are bad for debate"
• roj args are valuable
• cite specific parts of the 1ac that link
• go for whatever impact you prefer
• planless affs - I'll vote for you, prove that your model of debate is the better one
• How does your lit base interact with others? How does your discourse better the debate space?
• only need to extend a couple of links in the 2nr

Feel free to email me if you have any questions always happy to help the best I can!

Updated January 2023.

Yes I want to see your docs, so include me on the email chain (if you’re using one and not just doing speechdrop which is easier IMO). savannahlegler@gmail.com

I flow on my laptop on an excel sheet so there will be significant typing

My pronouns are they/them

Policy paradigm

I recommend reading this whole thing but I know it's long so TLDR; DO NOT SPREAD I will not flow it, likes Ks and K affs but you should understand the lit and IMO they can be abusive if you're just trying to confuse the other team, prefs specific (not generic) DAs, weird CPs can be abusive, T is meh (mostly because people don't run it right), other theory is ok. Framework debates will be prioritized over my personal preferences mostly. I don’t tolerate harassment/abuse of any kind, have warranted args, don’t clip cards, flow every speech in the round. Ethics philosopher cares about ethics so be ethical please. If you need to stop the round because of mental or physical health reasons, just tell me, I've been there

Background

I did policy all four years of high school at Olathe Northwest and have coached there for two years. I am a philosophy and psychology major at KU with a minor in women, gender, and sexuality studies. My favored branches of philosophy are ethics, political, and metaphysics and I’m specializing in abnormal psychology. I am familiar with a lot of theory as a result of my majors and experience, but I do have trouble remembering exact details like authors. I catch on quickly to new theoretical arguments and I thoroughly enjoy k debate. I’m not very familiar with the older style of debate (plan planks and contentions).

Truth informs tech. I’m not going to be voting on warrantless arguments or blatant untruths, that’s an abusive way to try and win the round and I think judge intervention is necessary. I think this applies most frequently to theory blocks, since a lot of times there isn’t an established internal link between the structural harms you’re citing (eg. neg block side skew) and the proposed solution (eg. aff sets framework). If you establish that internal link, it should be fine. My logic here is that you wouldn’t expect me to vote on a DA without an internal link, so why would you do that with theory? Additionally, I’m a strong believer that technical nonresponses to unreasonable arguments don’t outweigh winning substantive arguments and, because debate is about clash and education and discussion, I will always prefer to see discussion of important topics rather than arguments that are just there as distractions.

Overall, explain the things you’re saying because I’m not going to vote on an argument you don’t actually make (but I also won’t vote on warrantless args).

I think the idea that debate is a game and the goal is to win is extremely harmful. Just trying to dump cards on your opponent to make them slip up and not respond to something is slimy, same with running stuff and banking on the fact that the other team just won't understand what you're arguing. You're not helping yourself get better at analysis and argumentation by avoiding clash to win on technicalities and misunderstandings. I view debate as a space to have conversations and expand knowledge bases, a place for high schoolers to engage in political philosophy, and that requires everyone understanding what's going on and everyone operating fairly. Winning is nice, but unethical strategy in the name of winning is a major problem in debate. If this comes up as a meta argument in round, know I will not buy your debate as a game good theory, I simply won't budge on this one area.

Evidence

Don’t clip. It’s pretty simple to say “cut the card there” and send out a marked copy once your speech is done (I recommend spamming tab on your laptop to mark where you stopped because it can be easily done mid speech and makes sure your marked doc is correct and sent in a timely manner after your speech). I realize that, especially since I’m asking you not to spread, that you’re going to need to cut things off, but just take the two seconds to make me aware of it so I don’t have to get you disqualified for clipping (I really don’t want to have to do that). If your evidence is fraudulent or altered in any way, I will probably find out, and it will cost you the round and maybe the tournament, and I’ll chat with your coach about it. Just don’t do it, there’s plenty of evidence out there and it’s unethical to be making your own.

Aff burden

Aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, but this doesn’t exclude k affs. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to do a policy aff, but that’s not always what people go with. Relating to the res in an abstract way is valid if you can explain that. Be prepared to defend why your approach is best for debate and why your take on the resolution is necessary. If the debate ends and I’m unclear what an aff ballot means, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

Neg burden

A neg ballot is usually whatever you pull through to the 2NR. If you want to argue judge kick for a CP to also have the squo as an option, you’re going to have to do some theory lifting in order to get me there because I lean toward multiple worlds existing on the neg ballot being inherently abusive. Explain why it’s not. K alts and CPs are functionally the same to me, the difference is in the complexity, so just make sure your alt and what it means for the ballot is clear. If you're running a k with no alt you're gonna have to explain why you don't need one.

Speaking

Do not spread. I will not flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I have an auditory processing disorder. You don't need to spread to win. I get that you may find it annoying, but you need to be able to adapt to judge preferences and this is what I’m asking of you. I’m asking for speech docs for accessibility and to monitor for clipping, not to fill in gaps on my flow. You have to make connections and read off the args for them to get on there.

Keep track of what you read and what you don’t read and where you’re marking cards. Sending impossibly long speech docs (like whole camp files) that you know are more than you can read is bad practice. Essentially, trying to trick your opponent/the judge into believing you read a card you didn’t read is extremely unethical and over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you. Explicitly falsely claiming to have read a card in a previous speech is a round loss. You should be flowing your own speeches to avoid this happening.

Argument choices

You need to be running full arguments in your speeches. Starting a DA or T in one speech and saving the impact/voters for the block is abusive and not having those things at all means that you've wasted your own time because I can't vote on that argument. DAs need uniqueness, a link, and an impact (sometimes and an internal link). T needs an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

I love kritiks. This is probably not surprising as a philosophy major, and I do a lot of theory in my classes (I don’t just take major related classes so I’m familiar with economic oriented theory as well). I probably won’t have read exactly what you’re reading, but I’m familiar with a wide range of concepts and am comfortable with my ability to understand complicated arguments. The stuff I’m most familiar with is queer theory, biopower, settler colonialism, afro-pessimism, feminism, and anything relating to ethics. However, this is not a freebee to just run something because you think it'll confuse the other team. Philosophical discussions go both ways and I'm going to like your K a lot more if you're being diplomatic and helping the other team get your point so they can actually respond. In K debates you should be focusing on having a productive, fair philosophical debate with your opponent and that gets really muddled when all anyone cares about is the W. A fair warning about Ks, I will probably understand your lit better than you do, 9 times out of 10 this is the case, and this means I will notice if you don't understand the argument you're running, so best to run Ks you're comfortable with and not just something you pulled from open ev just for this round.

I will vote on topicality, but I think running it when you know an aff is topical is tacky (in a roll my eyes kind of way not a vote you down kind of way). However, I get that sometimes you don’t have anything else to run because you’re not a k team. Reasonability to me is more about there being multiple acceptable interpretations of a word, so if you’re not meeting any definition in the round, you’re probably not reasonably topical. I’m less lenient to obscure policy affs than to k affs on t and that’s a personal preference that you should be aware of (this is based on how useful I think each are to debate; the former not at all and the latter extremely). I’m probably not going to buy into t isn’t apriori to my decision but if you think you can convince me, go for it by all means. You don’t need 5 minutes of t in the 2NR for it to be convincing, but sometimes you need that five minutes to cover everything that’s happened on the t flow, so play it by ear. I don’t really enjoy t debates, they get really reductive a lot of times because it devolves into semantics for semantics' sake. I know some people are really into them, but I personally think there’s more important discussions to be had and throwaway t args are a waste of time. However, recall that I will vote on t because it is important.

DAs and CPs aren’t super interesting unless you have something that’s not generic. You can win on them, like everything, but I find big stick, low probability impacts dull and they’re one of my least favorite parts of debate. Politics DAs need to be updated to be relevant and even then, they’re a lot of speculation and fear mongering so be careful how you’re arguing. CPs are a whole can of worms and can easily be annoying to judge and abusive to the aff. PICs are iffy for me since the aff isn’t just coming up with the best possible plan, it’s the best possible plan and fitting in the resolution, but if you can argue theory for them then, as with most things, be my guest.

I prefer structural impacts because big stick impacts feel like sensationalized news headlines IMO, but it's not a hard preference in any way.

Theory is fun but needs to be clear and have internal links, as stated above. I don’t really have much more to say than don’t use theory as a time waster because it usually means it’s argued poorly, doesn’t apply, and makes you look bad.

A lot of people assume they’re winning every flow, but you’re probably not, so I recommend using the “even if” layering of argumentation in rebuttals to have flows interact with each other. Best to not assume you’re winning and built contingencies into your speeches for me.

Flowing

You should be flowing, even if it’s from the speech doc for accessibility reasons (another reason why marked copies are important, I did this all the time). If you respond to arguments that weren’t presented, your speaks will suffer for it, and obviously, not responding to a core argument because you weren’t flowing could cost you the round.

Apparently, y’all have decided prewritten overviews are the new hip thing. It doesn’t sound like a great idea to me, mostly because overviews should be short summaries of what you’re extending in the speech in the context of the current round (exception to this is aff case extensions, go ahead and prewrite those to your heart’s content). Every round shakes out different, so you should be adapting your extensions to what’s going on in front of the judge. Line by lines are very nice but I recognize they require a lot of organization. It’s usually better to go through each individual argument rather than doing each flow as an argument, since a lot of detail can be lost. Prewritten overviews that aren’t for unaddressed, pure extensions will be affecting your speaks.

Misc

I’m not going to tolerate any harassment, abuse, insulting, or exclusion in rounds (this is for extreme cases, which do happen, unfortunately). As someone who has experienced those things and been frustrated by judge apathy in the name of intervention philosophy, the debate space has to be accessible and equitable for everyone who is participating and that is the most a priori thing in a round. If someone is having a breakdown or is uncomfortable in ways I can’t visibly recognize, let me know and we can take a break. Your mental health and sense of belonging in the debate space is the most important thing to me and I won’t let other people compromise that for you. I will not tolerate violent, bigoted rhetoric being used in round. I’ve had people say I shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debate, to vote, or to make my own decisions because of aspects of my identity and I will absolutely not allow you to make these arguments. I am hard zero tolerance about this. You do not have the right to make the debate space unsafe.

Disclosure should be reciprocal in order to be ethical. If you wiki mined the aff’s case, you should disclose negative positions. In rounds where there’s a disagreement about disclosure, it’s unlikely to be the topic of my RFD, but I will probably have some criticism if there’s clear unfairness. Hold yourselves accountable for ethical practices.

The only time I will reject a team instead of an argument is on abuse/harassment/exclusion.

Parent judge, didn't debate in school. Undergrad from DeVry in Computer Information Systems, MBA from Keller Management School.

Debate the case before you debate rules and technicalities. Stay on topic of the resolution. Speed is conversational to moderate, please don't card dump in round.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before round.

yoo welcome to my paradigm

I did Policy all of highschool and some congress, debated at local, state, and national.

BASICS

• If you are disrespectful or discriminatory toward anyone you automatically lose my respect and the round
• The goal is to have fun, be competitive and learn something
• If you are an experienced team against a team who does not have a lot of experience i would prefer if you do not spread or be arrogant. Some people within debate do not have the access to camps or solid resources to quickly become as advanced.
• yes, i do want the evidence

CPs

• Im chill w CPs but if you dont know how to run one maybe stick to the DAs and case args
• State CPs and ones alike are honestly a time waster and something to kick at the end but ive seen some pretty good twists on it so dont be scared to run it

THEORY

• i love it i find it so fascinating, however i didn't have too much experience with it till the end of my high-school career, as long as you do a good summarization at the end there shouldn't be a problem with it
• Theres not any theory that i do not like that i have come across yet

honestly im down for any arguments do what u want

Former high school and university policy debate.

Currently assistant debate coach.Tend to be a stock issues voter with some policymaker overtones.   

You can speak as fast as you wish, but remember, this is an exerise in communication.  If I cannot or do not understand what you're saying, then your arguments are lost on me.  

Counterplans are OK (although for novices, I discourage them), but they need to be non-topical.

In general, not a fan of kritiks.  I find them gimmicky, and designed to stifle, not encourage, debate.  If done expertly, i will listen to them but as I said I'm not particularly fond of them. 

Abusive language will not be tolerated.  A sense of humor and witty self-deprecation are always welcome. 

Tech informs truth.

Hi everyone, I'm Owen. I did speech and debate for four years. My main debate events were Policy and LD. In Policy I was usually a 2A/1N. I went to Nats in LD three times. Please don't shake my hand. Dab me up instead. That's how I'll know you read my paradigm lol. Numbering your arguments is good. I also really like super-organized speech docs.

Policy Paradigm

DAs- Generics are fine. Depth over Breadth but that doesn't mean you need to go all in on just one DA. Circ DAs are valid and Fiat probably doesn't let you spike out of them but that's kind of situational I think.

CPs- Most CPs are good with me. Consult and Delay CPs are probably the exceptions but other than that I'm cool with most things. For Condo I'll vote for whoever wins the theory debate. Dispositional CPs aren't abusive to me as long as there aren't too many conditions to kick it attached. But again it mostly comes down to the theory debate on dispositionality to me. If you do run multiple CPs I'll lean towards "Condo/Dispo Bad" in the round.

Ks- Most Alts are bad I think. Most impacts are probably true but I think most Alts do a really bad job of addressing them. Like, really really bad. I'm kind of picky with Ks. If you wanna know if I'll vote on something feel free to ask. I've read minimal theory in some areas and a decent amount in some. If I read a K in debate it was probably Cap or Neoliberalism but personally, I don't always buy those. I don't like K Affs.

Stock Issues- I don't care about Inherency or Harms much unless you prove that the Aff was already passed or something huge like that. Getting Solvency as the Neg puts you way ahead on the ballot for me. But I need the Neg to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they win their arguments. If there's any in-between area on the debate then I'll vote for whoever I think has more ground, and I'll try to keep how much that impacts my ballot proportional to how much one team won or lost the debate by and also by its importance as an argument.

Framing- I don't think I have a whole lot of preferences or anything when it comes to framing, so I'll just roll with whoever is winning the framing debate.

Topicality- If you win T it's probably an autowin. I think that I'm pretty liberal when it comes to what I consider topical though. No preference on reasonability or competing interpretations. (I'm usually more persuaded by competing interps I think though.) You should probably be running counter standards and voters as the Aff if you go for competing interps (not required I think, but important), and either side dropping voters, counter voters, standards, or counter standards is a really big deal in my book. Also, I think that counter-voters/standards and regular voters/standards need to actually clash with one another. Don't just read them, but have them interact with each other.

Disclosure- If everyone wants to disclose, then I'm 1000% okay with that. (It makes my life way easier.) But if one team isn't comfortable disclosing then I'm not going to force them to. If you disclose please make sure Neg gets case and Aff gets past 2NRs. If you're going to run disclosure theory I want a really really concrete reason. Disclosure theory/abuse can totally be valid but I don't think many teams use it as anything other than a way to the ballot instead of trying to fix actual abuse.

Speed- Speed is fine as long as everyone can get the doc. I'm willing to vote for speed bad theory though. If you're spreading analytics please have them on the doc you send to me and the other team. I think not sending analytics you spread is insanely abusive.

Other Things-

I came from a small school that was really disadvantaged in more competitive circuits, so I'm always willing to vote on Classism voters if they apply.

I don't think novices should spread or run Ks.

I'll bump you .1 speaker points if you reference a piece of media that Jason Segel has appeared in like; How I Met Your Mother, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Muppets, etc.

LD Paradigm

I debated Trad and Progressive.

For Trad- The Value and Criterion are one-half of the round. The other half is Case. I think in order to win the debate by a large margin you need to win more than 50% of both sides of the debate. If one debater wins case and the other wins the V/C debate that makes things a lot more complicated. My vote then will probably be situational.

Any Value and Criterion work for me as long as they add up and work together. I don't have a preference for case structure but I like LD cases that are organized.

For Progressive- Pretty much default to what you see on my Policy Paradigm! V/C isn't necessary in my eyes for Progressive, but I could vote either way on "V/C required" theory. I also won't hold it against you whatsoever if you have a V/C for a more progressive style case.

T in response to untopical Contentions is strategic and underutilized. Framing Evidence to back up a V/C if you're still using that in Progressive is also something you should 100% be doing.

PF Paradigm

I never did PF. Make the round your own and convince me. For specific questions and answers feel free to check my other paradigms if it helps!

William Morris (he/him)

mtwilliamkatedebate@gmail.com

Olathe Northwest Highschool Debate Alumni

Updated 2021 January 14th

Hello all! First and foremost, best of luck.

I'll start by discussing my view of debate as a whole, then get into specifics. Debate is a forum for highschool students to have informed discussions about important topics. Every debate presents a tremendous opportunity for learning about the world that you occupy. In order to earn a vote from me, I need to see this in action. An educational debate is respectful, informative, and nuanced. I will not tolerate disrespectful competitors. Especially with the 2020/21 topic, I will not tolerate racism, xenophobia, sexism, or anything else of the sort. These are voting issues for me. Debate ought to be a safe space for all competitors where different ideas can be discussed, and if this basic principal is not observed by your team you will not receive my vote.

Tl;dr

Tell me what to vote on. I will not do this work for you. Present a framework for me to judge your augments: tell me which flows are more important and why I should care about your impacts. If you don't tell me what to vote on, then I will default to a policymaker mindset (ie competing impacts). If the neg's impacts outweigh the aff's impacts, I will vote neg. If the aff's impacts outweigh the neg's impacts, I will vote aff.

Truth over tech. If you say something untrue it will not be reflected on my flow or become a voting issue. If you read evidence telling me that the sky is red, I will reject that evidence. Please debate in the world you occupy.

Note on Rebuttals: Don't simply repeat what you've already said in previous rounds. Frame the debate for me. Make everything CLEAR. Run what you can win.

Note on CX: If you're not rude, almost nothing said in a CX will ultimately matter on my ballot. I understand that CX is viewed as free prep, and if you ask boring, timewasting questions than I won't count that against you.

I don't care for spreading, especially if I cannot understand what is coming out of your mouth. I will not read your evidence and try to understand your arguments for you. That being said, if both teams think that the educational value of the debate can be increased by reading more literature than I will *TRY* to keep up. Please note that if any one team does not want to have spreading in the round than spreading will not be tolerated.

Framework

I love it. I will flow it. If no counterframework is presented, I will assume the framework to be agreed upon by both teams and adopt it on my ballot.

Theory

If you make up KSHSAA rules I may laugh. I do have the rulebook, and I expect that if you are going to cite a breaking of rules that you do it with evidence from the up to date KSHSAA rulebook. If you don't cite a specific rule being broken, these are never voting issues for me.

NO NEW Ts, CPs, Ks (unless warranted) in the 2NC. Topicality, Counterplans, or Ks that are specific to the plan should be first read in the 1NC. New DAs are a stretch but in certain situations I will flow them.

Don't run Theory if it's not warranted. That being said I'll reject the argument, not the team. New evidence maybe be read in ANY speech, including rebuttals, *as long as it is relevant to ongoing clash*.

The exception to this is Ks in the 2NC if the justification for the K arouse in a later round. (ie spreading/language/racism/ableism/etc Ks are okay to run in the 2NC).

If the affirmative team believes that they were put at an insurmountable disadvantage in the round by having new Ts, CPs, Ks, or DAs run in the neg block, the MOST time you need to spend on making that argument to me is 15 seconds. Any longer than this and you are just shooting yourself in the foot by wasting your already short amount of time. I will likely agree if the abuse is apparent and throw out the specific flows from the neg block that are abusive.

NEG TEAM:

DAs

As the neg if you run a DA (or really about any other offensive argument), tell me how the impact of your disadvantage should be more important on my ballot then the aff's advantage(s).

CPs

I love counterplans. A CP run correctly by the negative team is likely the easiest way to get a neg ballot. If you want me to vote for you on a CP, it must be run in the 1NC, it must be run with DAs, and it must have a clear net benefit over the plan. If the aff team presents a reasonable perm, I will vote aff. If I vote for your CP, then you successfully proved to me that your plan can solve better, and avoid the DAs of the aff plan.

Topicality

If you run T on neg, run it correctly please. Give me an interpretation, how the aff violates said interpretation, and why the violation should matter enough for me to vote on topicality. If the neg runs T, the aff needs to either prove that they DO MEET the Neg's interp, or provide their own interp and standards, and demonstrate clearly why I should prefer their counter-interpretation of the resolution. If both teams do a good enough job on the T flow, then I (usually) will not consider it a voting issue (unless you make it one for me). To win T, you must win on interpretation of the resolution and provide standards and voters, as well as continue it throughout the debate (until your last speech). If you truly believe that the aff is untopical, T should be presented in every speech.

Kritiks

If you don't run your K correctly, I will not flow or vote on it. GIVE ME AN ALT. If you give me nothing to vote on, then I won't vote for your team on your K. If I do not understand your K, I will likely not flow it or vote on it. YOU as the debater must do the heavy lifting. I will not try to understand your K if you don't understand it well enough to explain it to me in a way that I understand. Ks DO NOT benefit from spreading.

AFF TEAM:

Advantages

DO NOT DROP YOUR ADVANTAGES PLEASE. Your advantages are the reason that a judge will vote for your plan over the status quo/a CP. Please elaborate on your advantages in EVERY SPEECH. If you drop your advantages, there becomes little left for me to vote Aff on. Thoroughly explain your impacts, and how they outweigh everything brought in to the round by the negative team. I won't vote on you advantage if you read it only in the first speech.

Case

Solvency is very important. Please defend it consistently throughout the round. If you can't, then the negative team has successfully proved that you can't solve, and I probably won't vote for your team.

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by persuasive or unrefuted argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to read a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

I debated in the late 1990s in all 4 years of High School and a bit during College. I have since judged at all levels of High School policy debate, LD, and student congress.

What I do not like:

Excessive speed that makes the debate impossible to interpret, ultimately this is a SPEECH competition.

Theory debate with no evidence.

Extensive counterplan debates, keep it simple and allow the Aff to set the tone.

Reading evidence which doesn't say what the tag/head says. (But it's up to the other team to make that observation, I'm a judge not a party to the debate.)

Arguments with no place to flow them, if you make a argument the debate will be cleaner if you tell everyone where to flow that arguments!

What I like:

A ROAD MAP and then following said road map.

Topic-centered debate.

Real-world application.

People who are kind but assertive.

Things to Note:

Prep time starts when the opposing teams speech ends, not when you say it does.

If you want to share electronically, that time to mess wirh technology is part of your prep. (Provided its allowed in the tournament.)

If there isn't a time keeper, I would appreciate you calling out speech time/length for your own speech at the end. ("... I'm now open for CX, 6 minutes 34 seconds.")

please put me on the chain Email:Rose.joel2003@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate

basic rules-

- I don't do hand shakes

- don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks

- I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space

- if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments

- you cant win a round without offense.

I'm a third year -- i prefer speechdrop but will do what is agreed on in round

You can speak slow, mid, or fast (spread if u want).

I'm really ok with any argument, DA's, CP's, or T's (i especially like T's, but this year sucks for them so wtv), if you're gonna run a K make sure you understand it, and please make sure its not nonsense, and please for the love of everything, read slower than you would evidence.

clipping: if you clip evidence i WILL ignore it, just follow the rules please. analytic arguments are ok, but dont cite something, and then not have a card of the cited info

please flow the debate, and flow properly, dont say you read a card if you didnt.

using an opponents evidence to prove your point is wonderful, as long as the evidence actually proves your point

all in all, this is supposed to be educational, dont use this space to bully, harass, or harm your opponents in any way.

(p.s. if youre reading this you already have a head up over your opponents, ALWAYS look up paradigms, if they dont have one, i recommend asking)

Background: 4 years at Baylor University, 1-Time NDT Qualifier. Assistant Coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2018-2022, Assistant Coach at Dowling Catholic High School, 2019-Present. Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science and I work for the Legislative Services Agency in Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: Sheaffly@gmail.com. Also email me with questions about this paradigm.

Paradigms are difficult to write because there are so many potential audiences. From novice middle schoolers to varsity college debaters, I judge it all. As a result, I want everyone reading this paradigm to realize that it was written mostly in terms of varsity college debates. I think about debate a little differently in high school and a little differently when it comes to novice debates, but I hope this gives you a general idea of how to debate in front of me

== TL;DR ==

Do line-by-line. I do not flow straight down and I do not flow off the speech doc. I am a DA/CP/Case kind of judge. I am bad at understanding kritiks and I am biased towards the topic being good. Be nice.

== Top Level - Flowing ==

It has become clear to me after years of judging that most of my decisions center not around my biases about arguments (which I won’t pretend not to have), but rather around my ability to understand your argument. My ability to understand your argument is directly related to how clean my flow is. Thus, it is in your best interest to make my flow very clean. I used to think I was bad at flowing, but I've come to the conclusion that line-by-line and organized debate has become a lost art. Debaters who learn this art are much more likely to win in front of me.

You are NOT as clear on tags as you think you are. Getting every 4th word of a tag is okay only if every 4th word is the key nouns and verbs. This is never true. So slow down on your tags, I am NOT READING THEM.

I’m not gonna flow everything straight down and then reconstruct the debate afterwards. The 1NC sets the order of the debate on the case, the 2AC sets the order of the debate off case. Abide by that order. Otherwise, I will spend time trying to figure out where to put your argument rather than writing it down and that’s bad for you.

Another tip: Find ways to give me pen time. For example, do not read 4 perms in a row. It’s impossible for me to write down all of those words. Plus, it’s always first and you haven’t even given me time to flip my paper over. And then your next argument is always an analytic about how the CP doesn’t solve and then I can’t write that down either. So stop doing things like that.

== Top Level – Arguments ==

Basic stuff: I love creativity and learning from debate. Make it clear to me how much you know about the arguments you are making. I don’t think this means you have to have cut every card you read, but understanding not just the substance of your argument, but the tricks within them is important.

As I said above, the thing that will be a problem for me is not understanding your argument. Unfortunately, this probably impacts Kritik debaters more than policy debaters, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I am probably a little more truth > tech than most judges. I believe in technical debate, but I also believe that debate is a place where truth is important. I don't care how many cards you have that say something, if the other team asserts it is not true and they are correct, they win the point.

== Top Level - Community Norms ==

1) For online debate, prep time stops when you unmute yourself and say stop prep. A couple of reasons for this. a) I have no way of verifying when you actually stopped prep if you come out and say "we stopped 15 seconds ago" and b) neither do your opponents, which means that you are basically forcing them to steal prep. I don't like it so that's the rule.

2) Debate is a messed-up community already. Don't make it more so. Be nice to each other. Have fun in the debate while you are disagreeing. If you make it seem like you think the other team is stupid during the debate, it's gonna make me grumpy. I love debate and I love watching people do it, but I hate confrontation and I hate it when people get angry about debates that don't matter that much in the long term. Be nice. Please.

3) This is mostly for high schoolers, where I see this issue all the time: If you are going to send a document without your analytics in it, making the version of the doc without the analytics in it IS PREP TIME. You don't get 45 seconds to send the document. Y'all are GenZ, I know you can send an email faster than that. You get 15 seconds before I break in and ask what the deal is. You get 20 seconds before I start prep again.

== Specifics ==

Affirmatives...

...Which Defend the Topic - I enjoy creativity. This includes creative interpretations of topicality. You should also read my thoughts on DAs as they apply to how you construct your advantages. Clear story is good.

...Which Do Not Defend the Topic - I am likely not a great judge for you. I think I may have a reputation as someone who hates these arguments. That reputation is not unearned, I built it up for years. But over time I’ve come to become a lot more accepting of them. There are many of these affirmatives that I think provide valuable debate. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out an interpretation of debate that allows the valuable "K Affs," but limits out the affs that I think are generally created to confuse their way to a win rather than provide actual valuable propositions for debate. I will always think of framework as a debate about what you JUSTIFY, rather than what you DO, and every interpretation I have ever seen in these debates simply lets in too much of the uneducational debates without providing a clear basis for clash.

I realize this sounds like I have been totally brainwashed by framework, and perhaps I have. But I want to be honest about where I'm at. That said, I think the above makes clear that if you have a defensible INTERPRETATION, I am willing to listen to it. You should also look at the section under kritiks, because I think it describes the fact that I need the actual argument of the affirmative to be clear. This generally means that, if your tags are poems, I am not ideologically opposed to that proposition, but you better also have very clear explanation of why you read that poem.

Negative Strategies

Framework: See discussion above. Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Education > procedural fairness > any other impact. “Ks are bad” is a bad argument, “their interpretation makes debate worse and uneducational” is a winnable argument. Topical version of the aff goes a long way with me.

Topicality: Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Case lists. Why that case list is bad. Affirmatives, you should talk about your education. I love creative interps of the topic if you defend them. But for the love of god slow down.

Disads: Absolutely. Well constructed DAs are very fun to watch. However, see truth vs. tech above – I have a lower threshold for “zero risk of a [link, impact, internal link] etc.” I love Politics DAs, but they’re all lies. I am up-to-date on the news. If you are not, do not go for the politics DA using updates your coaches cut. You will say things that betray that you don’t know what you’re talking about and it will hurt your speaks. Creative impact calc (outside of just magnitude, timeframe, probability) is the best impact calc.

Counterplans: I'm tired of the negative getting away with murder. I am VERY willing to listen to theory debates about some of these crazy process CPs which compete off of a net benefit or immedicacy/certainty. Theory debates are fun for me but for the love of god slow down. Otherwise, yeah, CPs are fine.

Kritiks: Eh. You can see the discussion above about K affs. I used to be rigidly ideological about hating the K. I am now convinced that the K can make good points. But because I was so against them for so long, I don’t understand them. I still think some Kritiks (here I am thinking mostly of French/German dudes) are basically designed to confuse the other team into losing. Problem is, I can’t tell the difference between those Kritiks and other Kritiks, because all Kritiks confuse me.

Very basic Ks are fine. Realism is bad, heg is bad, capitalism is bad, I get. Get much beyond that and I get lost. It's not that I think you're wrong it's that I have always been uninterested so I never learned what you're talking about. I cannot emphasize enough how little I understand what you're talking about. If this is your thing and I am already your judge, conceptualize your K like a DA/CP strategy and explain it to me like I have never heard it before. Literally, in your 2NC say: "We believe that X is bad. We believe that they do X because of this argument they have made. We believe the alternative solves for X." I cannot stress enough how serious I am that that sentence should be the top of your 2NC and 2NR. I have had this sentence in my judge philosophy for 3 years and this has been the top of the 2NC once (in a JV debate!). I do not know how much clearer I can be. Again, I am not morally opposed to Kritiks (anymore), I just do not understand them and I will not vote for something I do not understand. I believe you need a good link. Yes, the world is terrible, but why is the aff terrible. You also need to make your tags not a paragraph long, I never learned how to flow tags that were that long.

Last Updated: November 2023

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.

Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv

Tell me why anything you are reading in the round matters, don't just rattle off cards. That is key to clash for me.

Disadvantages this year are in desperate need of uniqueness, tell me how the Aff plan itselfis going to cause the impact. I don’t mind Kritiks, just be aware of the weaknesses inherent in putting one forward in the round.

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.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

I am a former Kansas High School Debate and Forensics Coach. I have been either competing, coaching or judging debate and forensics since 1988.

Debate Paradigm

I like to claim that I am tabula rasa in my judging philosophy. I try to leave it up to the competitors to convince me that they deserve my vote.... that being said, as a former debater and coach I still like to see well structured arguments.

I will vote for topicality if it is structured well and has a legitimate purpose.

I will also vote for disadvantages if they have a clear link to the aff plan, have evidence that we are on the brink of bad thinks happening....and the aff plan will push us over the ledge. Most importantly the disadvantage needs to outweigh the affirmative advantages.

I love debate and really enjoy watching students progress in this activity.

....oh yeah.... speed.... I can handle speed....the question is... can you handle speed?... I get to be the judge of that as well.

Forensics Paradigm

I love all the Forensics events, I am happy to judge any of them

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Lansing HS Assistant Coach

KU '

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that