I am currently in my second year of debating with Manhattan Highschool. I have no particular stance on Aff, just know your case well. I have no preference on Neg strategies that will turn the ballot. However, personally, I like on-case arguments, and DA's. If you run a K or a CP, you should be able to explain it well, in lay terms, the same for T. For both teams, respond to ALL arguments. Take full advantage of your rebuttals, I will always advocate for the team with the most persuasive rebuttal. I want to see you selling your arguements.

when im judging rounds I really like to see clash, direct oppositions to the other's case. I am not extremely on board with most counterplans, unless you can convince me why 1) your solution is much better than the aff, 2) why running a counterpane is important.

contradictions really annoy me but if the other team never points anything out I cant really say anything. I will judge off the flow, yes but also on effectiveness of communication and organization of your arguments and presentation. debate is fact based but there is no reason it cant be a fun little performance!! just don't play music please.

I want to be a part of evidence sharing and speech drop is so much better than anything, but if speech drop isn't an option thats fine.

overall I really dont care what you run as long as you can do it effectively with good warrants and evidence.

Debated 4 years at Manhattan High School.

Qualified for Nationals my Sophomore year and competed at KDC State, 4-Speak, and 2-Speak.

I find myself to be a mix of policy maker and tabula rasa. Just debate however you'd like, I'm merely judging.

Speed: If you speak fast enough to the point where I can't understand the words flying out of your mouth, I will lose interest and in turn not view your argument as effective.

Cross-Examination: I prefer closed, doing an open version and having your partners do all the work only makes me wonder if you're incompetent on your arguments.

Kritiks: I'm fine with a K being ran as long as it is only the negative team doing so.

Counterplans: I don't care if you run one or not, just don't expect it to be a major voter for me.

Topicality: Only if the affirmative plan is blatantly un-topical will make me care or not, just present an effective argument and I will dive deeper. If you can persuade me enough it is a voter.

Impact Calculus: Best thing you could do in a debate round. Tell me your standing impacts, why you outweigh, and why the opposing team doesn't have impacts or why they're absolute.

Framework: If you use any sort of framework in a debate round, please go in depth, I don't want to decipher exactly what you mean.

If you're affirmative, keep your case intact. Make sure the structure is there with minimal loose ends. Play more defensively rather than offensively.

Tell me what you win on and why your opponents lose, instead of making me spend more time piecing together your arguments myself.

Be nice to your opponents, debate is an activity we all should enjoy and learn from.

Former MHS Debater

sydney.k.vahl@gmail.com

Add me to the speechdrop or email chain

My paradigm is mainly just me ranting about all the things that have annoyed me in debate, don't take it too seriously :) I update this after every tournament I've competed at/judged at

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE:

I’ve judged 20+ novice rounds this past resolution in my home state of Kansas and I qualed to both state tournaments on an 80% win record. I know this resolution VERY well, but I’m still excited to see ya’ll debate it :)

I’m a little rusty on my debate skills since Kansas’s policy season ended in January, so go easy on me with speed and the amount of arguments you run.

Honestly, just have fun with it and PLEASE be flowing. I’ve judged a lot of bad novice debate but as long as you aren’t dropping and picking up arguments left and right you’ll be fine in front of me.

I’m a policymaker and will vote for whoever does the least harm and most benefits.

DAs are my favorite, I’ll accept topicality within reason, I’m ok with Ks within reason again, and I hate CPs.

I LOVE structural violence impacts/real world tangible impacts. I have a hard time buying nuke war and total extinction.

Fast reading is ok, spreading and monotone is NOT! Quality > Quantity in your args.

Just be nice to each other and DO NOT WASTE SPEECH TIME! Speak for the whole time! Every speech!

You can read the rest of my paradigm is you want, but this is essentially what I’ll be evaluating the round on :) Good luck!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is. I didn't know how important this was to me until I forfeited a round crying and the judge didn't do anything. If you make your opponents cry and are being consistently a mean and bad person there is no way you will get my vote. I will not hesitate to stop a round.

Not a fan of emotional appeals. I don't care that "all my friends and family are going to die" or "thinking about the children", just explain your cards and why your impact outweighs PLEASE!

I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them. Lazy debaters run false arguments.

MAJOR NOTE: If I'm making a face at you it's probably because I don't like what you're saying, so don't keep saying it and move on. Novices this means you.

Flow: I will (most likely) be flowing the round. Don't send me a masterfile, I only want the cards you are reading in round. If I don't know what you read, I won't flow it and you will lose on the flow.

Paper debate: No.

Lying: STG, if you think you can go up in your 2AR and just lie through the entire thing you need to never debate again because you are the problem. I WILL NOT accept blatant lies. DO NOT LIE ON THE FLOW. DO NOT tell me card's weren't answered to when they obviously were. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of lies that I couldn't contest and I know what it feels like to lose to lies I couldn't contest, don't be that person. Lying on your arguments is an entirely different story though. If you can successfully gaslight the other team, good for your girlie pop. If they don't question it, that's on them. I however, will question it, so watch what you say. TD;DR don't lie on the flow, all other lying is ok unless you get called out or I ignore you <3

CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!

Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed.

Spreading: I think speed and spreading are different things. If you speak faster but I can still hear actual words coming out of your mouth you're all good. Spreading so fast that your words are unintelligible is not acceptable. If I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth then I'm not flowing it. I can only write/type so fast, if I miss something I'm not going back to fix it later.

On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.

Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.

K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then.

DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.

T: I'm a reformed T hater. While I don't like T being used as a time suck or being used against obviously topical cases, I LOVE LOVE LOVE a T double bind (T Subs & IRS Trade-Off DA<333). Not a fan of T with novice caselist. You have a packet with every possible adv and argument, there are no voters. Voters are the biggest thing for me on t. Even if you can prove a violation, if you have no voters then it doesn't matter to me. AKA losing voters = losing the arg

CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF. Generally I think CPs are lazy ways to get out of interacting case, if you go with a CP I still want to see flow on case. I hate seeing more than one CP, no multiple worlds nonsense. If you're still holding onto both of them by rebuttals and don't tell me which you're kicking then I will choose what to kick and I guarantee you won't be happy with my choice.

Rebuttals: The most important part of the round to me. Give me a well organized and efficient rebuttal. This is your time you really hammer in the central messages and ideas of your case, don't waste it.

Analytics: Don't tell me a team didn't properly respond to your arguments when they read analytics. You're not going to have a card for everything and that's ok, sometimes you only need a quick analytic (but not all the time, use cards when you can <3).

Condo: BAD! If you've got like 3 off 2 DA and T and drop T by the 2NR then that's fine but I will not sit through more than that. 4+ off only shows that you came in ill prepared to actually debate the resolution. I want quality over quantity.

Things I hate:

• Extinction good
• Bootlickers and butt-kissers
• Name calling/accusations. DO NOT resort to calling your opponents names. Calling someone racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist etc. is serious and not just something to win you the debate round.
• Assuming facts about a person and forming arguments about them in round. It is so funny for me as a white-passing-Asian getting "called out" for running Asian related arguments.
• T args without proper voters. IDC if theres a violation if the other team can prove that there are no harms
• Schools that are not small running small schools. Girliepop be so for real
• Running T as a noble argument. The effects of topicality only matter to me in round
• K Affs (hate hate hate hate hate hate)
• "This is my CX" This is so unnecessary just move on , you don't have to engage. I HATE this
• Calling for abuse when there so clearly wasn't. Responding to the arguments that YOU brought up is not abusive lol
• Not a politics DA person. I've run and cut enough of them to know how bad the uniqueness arguments can be. If you lose uniqueness then you lose the DA. Unless you can cut a politics DA right before or the day of probably avoid these with me. I love the idea of them but it just end up being a recency debate and I hate that with a passion
• Yes or no questions in cx. If you asked someone a question let them answer it how they want to answer it, don't put words in their mouth. If you do this nonsense (not the word I want to use) I will feel more sympathetic to the team being CXed. Yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no does nothing for anyone

Things I love

• More tangible real-world impacts. Structural violence>>>nuke war
• A good trade-off DA
• DOUBLE BINDS <333
• IMPACT CALC
• Framing and framework. ESPECIALLY uncontested framing and framework

Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.

If you're looking for my political affiliation, just don't run hard right arguments. I tend to vote on more left leaning args.

Feel free to reach out afterwards to ask me about my ballot or if you need further clarification.