East Kansas Novice Championship
2022 — Overland Park, KS/US
Novice Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDe Soto High School (KS). I’ve debated just about everything, so do wtv.
(+1 speaker point for every speech you give with an accent)
**Debate is supposed to be fun so PLEASE be kind to one another. Bad attitudes make me uncomfy. I won’t vote on spark/genocide good args. Obviously don’t change your case for me, but be aware that my opinions will be reflected in the comments of the ballot.
I have a good amount of experience with policy and K debate, so feel free to run what you want. I’ll do my best to understand your kritical lit, but assume I don’t know what the arg is until you explain it to me. Speed is fine. Please don’t read theory/procedurals without voters; it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Also, don’t perf con yourselves.
If there are any questions, just ask :)
Email (For Email chains): natalieriggs05@gmail.com
Pronouns: They/Them
Policy Debate
I am mostly going to be judging based on knowledge of your resolution, speaking skills, and ability to answer arguments. I have done both debate and forensics throughout High School.
I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years
I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University
email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com
they/them
Judge is weird and makes me feel old, so please use it sparingly if you don't want to call me nik.
\\ I have an apd which makes it difficult to hear spreading so I'm probably not the best judge if you wish to do that, im sorry. Either way, you can go slow or spread in front of me but on the chance that you do spread don't blitz through the tags so I can actually pick up what you're trying to put down - the same goes for analytics or the rebuttals - if you need me to write make it so I can hear it. I cleared people at the end of my career as a debater and I will clear you now.//
General
Be respectful towards you're opponents
I think pre-round disclosure is good
Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.
I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.
I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.
IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career
___________________________________________________
Tech/Truth
I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be
Disadvantages
I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.
Counterplans
I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.
Kritiks/K-Affs
I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.
T-FW/Framework
I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.
Topicality
A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough
MISC.
Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.
Same with slurs, etc.
I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.
I've done debate for 4 years and have gone to KSHSAA state for two of them in the Open division. My style is primarily traditional, persuasive debate. Think of it like a courtroom, not a chess board. I will still judge heavily based on who wins the flow, but your skill as a public speaker will also play a role in if you win my ballot.
Arguments
Pretty much any argument is okay. I will catch any T argument, but if the T doesn't actually apply/make sense on a debate theory level, I may flow the T arg to the aff. Ks are also good, but you will have to do a lot of work to explain the K to me, b/c I generally don't run Ks in round. Role of the ballot is important to me in a K debate -- what does my vote do?
if you run a counterplan, make it unconditional. i don't buy that condo is good. that's probably the only argument I wouldn't bother running with me as a judge
Theory
i prefer tech over truth until it gets to very outlandish and obviously untrue arguments
cx is binding by default -- Anything you say in cross-ex WILL apply in future speeches
do impact calc on both sides -- if you can't explain the significance of your harms/impacts i won't vote for it. i am able to interpret pretty much any set of evidence you throw at me but if you can't explain it in your own words it will be harder for me to consider.
i will automatically shoot down any problematic behavior (racism or racist rhetoric, disrespecting pronouns/gender identity, etc.)
Email- camillechaffin33@gmail.com
Pronouns- She/Her
Hello! I am a fourth-year kdc debater from Olathe Northwest.
Do what you see fit, I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible.
Be kind and treat the round with respect and we should be good!
(If you are reading any evidence from paper, please give me a copy or let me take a picture before your speech so I can flow it. If you do not and I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not be flown.)
Hello! I am a 4th year debater at De Soto High School.
I am OK with any type of argument you want to make. As a debater, I generally run DA/CP as well as Theories like vagueness and topicality. I will evaluate K's but make sure you have a good Framework.
I will typically vote aff if the aff is net good or neg if the plan is net bad. A good way to win me over as neg is stock issues (Solvency, Harm, Inherency, Topicality, Significance). If you are aff, prove to me that you are better than the status quo. Don't assume an argument is insignificant because you never know what I find convincing. Even if I agree with you on everything else, one small argument could cost you the round. CPs have to be functionally competitive and have to have a net benefit.
My vote does has to align with the speaker's rank, and if I can't justify giving the team that won the argument high enough speaker ranks, I will default to the better debaters (This doesn't happen often though). A good debater has good arguments and good performance. Make sure you are making it clear when you are reading a new card, and enunciate the tag. Try to signpost if possible and tell me where you want me to flow your argument.
I would like to see a thorough understanding of the topic. I like credible arguments that would work in real life. I am perfectly fine with extinction arguments (I run them too), but humanized links and impacts will almost always win on probability. I can do lay or tech-style debates, but make sure you explain the arguments you want me to vote on thoroughly. I am a fan of framing the debate with statements like "Even if we lose X you will vote for my team because of Y".
Please be kind during the debate. Being mean will dock your speaker points! Using what the other team says is convincing, but please do not straight-up lie or put their words wildly out of context. Also, power tagging if pointed out can lead me to disregard that evidence. Please include me in evidence sharing so I can evaluate the evidence if warrants are questioned in the debate. (if using email chain - AustinC.debate@gmail.com)
Please no "New in the Two". This is a hole that you will have a hard time digging yourself out of. Going along with this, don't lie in the 2AR!!! I am following the debate and this will harm you more than help.
If you have any questions about my preferences you can ask me before the round. I look forward to watching your debate!
Lansing '22
KU '26
please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com
pronouns: he/him
good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k
ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k
(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)
Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.
I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.
When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.
Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.
Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.
tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false
depth > breadth
in depth off case > more silly off case arguments
specific links > vague links
speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable
Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.
Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.
..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother
I'm Rowan Gibson (he/him)
I am a senior at sme. Any post round qs--> gibson17rowan@gmail.com
I have no hard preferences regarding what kind of arguments I prefer, but please make sure that you understand what arguments you are making. Any specific questions about me or my judging preferences please ask. I default to policymaking
k: Please make sure that you know your lit
da: links do matter novices just ignore this lol
theory: anything goes I will vote on anything reasonable
He/Him
Don't read so fast that I cannot understand you
If you are disrespectful in any way to your opponents you will most likely not win
I have a lazy eye
I am chill
Hi, my name is Ida Harrington I am a varsity debater at Lawrence High School.
To start I do not like spreading.
If you run topicality you need to run it right and with all the needed measures, also if you claim abuse on neg you are really going to have to argue it good if you want me to vote on it.
Everything else i'm open to hearing, just have a good educational and interesting debate.
I also do not like unnecessary rudeness, I get it that you are passionate but don't be disrespectful.
Ku’27
she/her/hers
Top–
I have debated critically for most of my debate career. Though, growing up in Kansas policy and stock issues debates are not foreign to me. I encourage you to debate the way you’ve invested. Warranted analysis, ample judge instruction, and framing arguments in rebuttals are necessities. I flow straight down, I think disclosure is good.
-
Do not take cross ex as prep, do not brush past cross ex…it’s literally a speech
-
No need to prompt your partner, just say the argument i’ll flow it
-
I flow on my computer, but I’m not typing at 3000x speed
-
I read evidence during the debate. Clipping = L
Policy v K–
I assume aff get’s to weigh the plan at the start of debate. Fw is important. Quality line by line in the 2ac is important. “Our threats are real/extinction outweighs” to set up that link turn + alt does nothing slam dunk #period! If the negative has not isolated a mechanism to resolve links/impacts, I am very liberal to a “you went for a non UQ da…here’s the permutation” 2ar.
For the negative–
Link specificity is good, whether that is links to the plan, performance, or representations is up to you. I prefer “alt solves the links” over “our fw interp solves our fw offense” but do you. I am most familiar with black feminism, anti-blackness, capitalism critiques, and arguments surrounding affect. Buzz words are bad over explaining is good. I understand being the 2n that has a lot of floating offense, judge instruction for how this frames out aff engagement/impacts is necessary. I’ve always been a 2A so I love a good case throw down, best K 2n’s save 1-2 min of the 2nr to obliterate the case.
Planeless Affs:
I believe affs should be in the direction of the resolution or have a topic link. 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:
There is a difference between the 1ac having a critique of the topic vs the resolution–critique of the resolution is neg ground and should be exploited in these debates.
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]" No case debating in the 2NR is probably going to be an L.
Hi! I'm a 4th-year debater
I'll be flowing the round and will look at evidence (put me in the email chain please! emmahefty0608@gmail.com )
I'll listen to pretty much any argument as long as it is explained and extended well. I'd rather you go for arguments you feel comfortable with than change your strategy for me. So run what you like and I'll follow! Novice debate is about learning and growing, so as long as the round/arguments cultivate that environment then go for whatever you'd like :) That being said, be nice and respectful to one another. I'm all for being assertive, but if you are rude and disrespectful I will definitely vote you down.
If you ever have any questions after the round, feel free to ask or email me! Debate is about making connections and learning, so never hesitate to reach out :)
I can flow
indigo june
she/her
4th year DCI debater @ shawnee mission south
asrajune.debate@gmail.com
Hi! I'm a fourth year debater at SME, and I mainly debate national circuit
Pronouns she/her
Pls add me to the chain - leonard.sophia.103@gmail.com
My debate philosophy is mainly influenced by Jwilk, Grayson Weber, and Trey Witt
TL:DR
I am chill with whatever you want to read as long as you clash
General Notes
- racism, sexism, homophobia, violence is an auto loss
- Tech over truth
- If you have an accommodation request pls ask with me present - debate is your space and I want everyone to feel comfortable in it but I feel weird judging an accommodation violation argument if I didn't know there was one
- Ok with speed if you're clear
- I like open cross but prep before cross-ex will steal your speaker points
- A debate without good clash is lame. Card dumping is boring
- If you make me laugh I might boost your speaks :)
- Please don't pack up during the 2AR, it stresses me out
- I don't specifically function on a policy making paradigm, it's your job to tell me how to evaluate the round. I think debate is probably a game but not necessarily
- I don't want to judge intervene so pls frame your arguments in final rebuttals
- RVIS ARE NOT REAL
- #Bringbackwarrants2024 - extending the tag of evidence isn't compelling
AFF: whatever floats your boat, but if you’re running a k aff please make it accessible: I'm not always super familiar with the lit.
For the neg: only reading case defense is boring. Read no solvency, offense, case turns etc
For the aff: A really defensive 2ar is never a great idea and leans towards a presumptive ballot. Take advantage of the last speech because framing arguments are really compelling
T: I HATE ADJUDICATING T. If you decide to disregard this and go for T it better be at least the majority of the 2nr. I default to competing interps even if they're silly
K: I've read militarism and cap so I'm relatively familiar with those lit bases, as well as set col, security, pess, but don't assume I'm super familiar.
Fairness is only an internal link if you say it is :)
2nr's I find compelling are 1) Framework and link analysis or 2) links and alt especially with real analysis on causal solvency
I really love when teams impact turn one another's framework or do impact calc on FW
DA’s: Idk I'm not picky on DAs, but I do love smart impact framing arguments in the rebuttals - mitigation or prerequisite arguments are underrated. I think politics or elections on this topic is squirrely at best
CP’s: go for it but just know I’m not great for a competition debate or condo debate - I think 2nc counterplans are devious but do your thing i suppose
Theory:I'm ok for it, I like creative theory. If you wanna go for severance perms bad I would rock w that. If you hide aspec from your opponents you might accidentally hide it from me too tho
Impact Turns:the best strat in the game
Mich update
my judging philosophy is comprable to the quote by joe biden- "In the good old days when I was a senator, I was my own man."
TRUTH OVER TECH!!!! da links must be to the plan text, but k links can be to squo and terminally nonuq
pls turing test!!!! there is an epidemic of robots in this activity :(((( ill send u the file
average speaks are 28.5 on a sliding scale -
lose speaks (-.1) by being annoying, if i have to clear you (after 2 clears you get a 20), having a computer with a screen over 12 inches (or double monitors), not preempting aspec in the 1ac, or your name starts with a J and you're a gemeni
*Note - if your name is Jaxson, Jackson, Jaxon, or any iteration you immediately get the L + 1 speaker point + report to tabroom
gain speaks (+.1) by reading your plan as if you were a kansan performing a dramatic interp, making a joke, bringing me a snack (if its an energy drink auto 30), starting your final rebuttal with the hail mary, and +.2 if you hide aspec (aff or neg) (jk) (maybe not)
i feel uncomfortable adjudicating any arguments about patents
My name is Cameron Linde (He/Him) and am a 4th year debater at Olathe South.
I want on the email chain or speechdrop
Email: os.clinde@gmail.com
I always look incredibly bored when I am judging, do not be offended by it.
I don't care about speed, I can deal with spreading and such, but clarity is my tiebreaker. I will not clear you.
Tech>Truth
I really cannot define what type of judge I am, but everything in my paradigm should help you figure out what type of judge I am.
I like overviews very much. Explain the story of the round, minus the 1AC/1NC.
Debate how you want to, I will take whatever you throw at me and figure out what I like. I hate it when judges control the round to the point it skews my neg strat, so I won't do it to you.
(Note: I am not very familiar with K-Aff v. K debates and might not be a great judge for it)
I Hate Disclosure Theory. If you choose to run disclosure theory, please scream and run around the room while you do it so I am at least a little bit entertained.
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!! i'm marie (she/her), and i'm a smn graduate! i’m in my first year at umkc studying history and biology, aiming to get my emt license in a couple years :) i did debate and forensics for four years each.
i’m an experienced judge but i’m also just like. a dude. i’m a college kid with a caffeine addiction. as long as you aren’t dropping slurs or something wild i’m gonna be nice.
out of round/decorum(?): i flow on paper, but my system is between me and god so if you see a lot of paper that makes very little sense that’s why. please signpost!! as long as you slow down for tags/signposting, go at the speed your opponents and partner are okay with- within reason. debate is an exercise in argumentation, not who does a better eminem impression. if i can’t understand your argument because you’re going too fast, i can’t flow it, then bam you don’t have a second advantage and it’s all a mess.
let each other finish sentences in cross ex- it is my biggest pet peeve!!!!!!!! your opponent is a person, please talk to them like it. any form of rudeness, especially discrimination, will be noted and weighed when judging (i will dock speaker points and potentially speak to someone about it). part of the beauty of speech and debate is its diversity. embrace it.
in round: policymaker style judging- i do my best to tabula all my rasas, but sometimes my brain slips a little.
- i’ll listen to pretty much any argument as long as you walk me through a K or Theory and convince me of it
- if you’re using a plan that links to the resolution with duct tape and a prayer i will have questions. re: convince me
- if you’re using a default font CP, explain how the benefits specifically outweigh the aff plan. yay! counter plan is better! why.
- CPs have to be well-structured and argued
- burden of proof falls to the aff! if i do not believe the aff would be the best option i will not vote for it, esp if neg is arguing squo
other than these bullets, go bonkers with it, i’ll keep up.
Varsity debater at Lawrence High, she/her
Add me to the email chain: 10204288@students.usd497.org
Generally tech>truth
I'll listen to pretty much any argument if it's explained well, however I enjoy K debates best. I appreciate good argument analysis and find judge instruction very important.
I default to evaluating framework first in K debates, it's an easy way to get my ballot and also just my fav part of the debate. I'm open to pretty much any Ks, teach me about your lit. Just know what you're running because if you don't I wont either.
Be nice and have fun. Run what you're most comfortable with. If you have any questions ask!
About me
Hello! My name is Joseph but competitors can call me Joe. I am a 3rd-year debater from Olathe South Highschool, although I am more into forensics; got 5th in prose at state so the way you present your speech does matter to me. love the art of debate and I love the educational aspect of it.
Overall
- Be nice to each other
- I will be keeping track of the time
- I will be flowing
- I would like to be on the speech drop or have access to the USB drive if competitors are comfortable with that
- if you're going to do an analytical argument tell me where you're applying it, tell me what the issue is, and please don't use this type of argument to ramble and waste time.
- Unless you can somehow save it, dropped arguments mean you're going to lose on that specific piece.
Most importantly
- 1) don't ramble. Personally, I don't mind if you only use 7 minutes out of your 8-minute speech but make your points clear and concise. If you're doing analytical make sure you tell me as to why what you're saying is important
- 2) Structure of an argument is crucial, Ex) if you're going to run T I need to see your interp, violation, standards and voters.
Preferences-Aff
- Tell me how many pieces of paper I will need to flow before starting your 1A.
- I don't love spreading but I can keep up--- Please don't think you will be docked for spreading because you won't be.
- Explain your case and tell me what you're doing, the easier you make it for me to understand the better
Preference- Neg
- Again please give me a road map
- Make your arguments clear
- tell me where you're applying your evidence
- I enjoy T but Make your arguments clear and tell me where exactly they aren't topical.
- I don't mind CP's but make sure you make it clear what exactly you're doing
- the more evidence you can run the more fun I think it is
When it comes down to it. If your arguments do not make sense or you don't tell me how it applies, you won't be winning on that argument.
If you have any questions as to why you lost the round or for me to elaborate on why I believe you lost, please do email me at (Gmail put at bottom). But please note anything, after the round said or done pertaining to the debate, will not be able to change by ballot 727jwr17@students.olatheschools.com.
Hello! I'm Gabe or Flora (she/they). I'm a high school senior in my third year of debate.
I am conventionally trained in rhetoric and rhetorical analysis, and I will primarily approach the round from that perspective. I'm not extremely concerned with the technicalities of policy debate—my vote will, in all likelihood, be based primarily off of what the arguments each team is making are and who comes out on top in that respect.
To that end, your rebuttals especially (but also your other speeches) should be explaining to me, as clearly as possible (though I'm not afraid of big words), what your position is, what you believe the other team's position is, and why I should vote for your position.
However, if you are rude or disrespectful to anyone else in the room, including (but not limited to) me or any other judges, the opposing team, or even your partner, you WILL lose the round and get the lowest speaker ranking I can give you. If it is a serious enough issue, I will talk to your coach. Don't be a jerk.
Additionally, if a technicality is egregious, I may base my vote off of that as well. Don't drop whole DAs or anything.
To that point, the order of factors affecting my decision is:
- Rudeness and respect - if you are rude or disrespectful to anyone else in the room, you WILL lose the round.
- Your arguments and if and how well they outweigh the other team's
- Technicalities of policy debate (this may be bumped higher if there's some egregious issue, like an entire DA that's dropped)
I will essentially go through this order in my head to determine my RFD. If there are no issues with rudeness or respect, I'll move on to your arguments, and if I can't determine anything there (or if there's an egregious issue with a technicality), I'll move on to technicalities.
I will flow your round, though this is mostly for note-taking and again, my decision will almost certainly be based off of your arguments, not whether or not you dropped a single card.
I strongly prefer that you use SpeechDrop and have proper speech docs, but it won't affect my decision if you don't, or even if you just dump a re-highlighted novice packet in SpeechDrop (I've been there). It's just nice to have.
Don't run T unless the other team REALLY isn't topical. I don't like T arguments that are based off of a weird technicality of a definition.
Only run a K if you know what you're doing with it.
I think that's about it. Be kind, good luck, have fun, and always use the Oxford comma!
Add me to the email chain (or Speech Drop ????): 10200419@students.usd497.org
Hi! I'm Kaitlynn (they/she), and I am a junior debater from Free State. I have been involved in debate for a while now, and I know a lot about how it functions and this topic. With that being said, I don't want to stress you out, so treat me like a parent judge who actually knows what they're doing and how to weigh the ballot/different arguments. And if you ask for oral comments on speaking or strategy, I will give them, but everything will be on my ballot so don't worry! I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and coherent. I also don't mind cursing in the round, it adds passion, so do whatever you enjoy/will help you win:). I also WILL NOT vote for you if you are harming the way the debate is supposed to function or being bigoted in any way. Let's get started!
TL;DR - Read what you are comfortable reading, be nice to each other, and format the speech so I can flow easily. If you have any questions, just ask!
Now for the nitty-gritty:
Aff Case: I'm pretty open to whatever approach you might have or decide to take. However, I believe that the 1AC should be appropriately timed and understandable, that you shouldn't only have extinction impacts, and that you must understand what you are reading. The 1AC cross-ex should be the easiest to follow and is an excellent way to preface the debate. The only other thing I have to say here is that I think that lying in the 2AR is a fast way to count yourself out of the debate, - lay things out for me how they were, and then explain why you still win - I love a good "even-if" argument.
Neg Approach: Don't utilize time sucks, I hate them and think they are cheater-y. I think running less offense and fully understanding it while having time for the aff case is in your best interest anyway. In the end, a lot of people think that being negative means losing the ballot because they choose to approach it that way. It's actually a really good place to be in since you can read pretty much anything as long as it links and the aff might not have something to answer it with/understand the argument. Use this to your advantage and be strategic - if I have to hear both you and your partner in the negative block say the exact same thing instead of splitting it, I will go crazy. Make sure you know what you're talking about and you should be set.
Neg Specifics:
T: I am okay with T as long as you don't read it as a time suck and it's not your go-to strategy - only read it if it is necessary.
DA: If you have all four parts of the DA, you're doing great! I haven't found/seen one I haven't liked or viewed as not feasible in-round, but make sure you don't use generic links - or if you do, explain them well enough that they don't seem generic.
CP: I absolutely love certain CPs, but I can get pickier about how they work in the debate - like if you want to read the States CP, make sure you have solvency for the States specifically because municipal governments have different governmental frameworks. I do have some hated CPs, but none are super relevant this year, so you should be fine.
K: I am not a K-Debater, but I do love hearing K's! If you feel comfortable reading one as a champ novice, go for it, maybe you'll knock my socks off! I am super familiar with Capitalism, Imperialism, Security, Fem IR, and SetCol, so if you are reading those, yippee! If not, don't worry, but make sure to overexplain your literature - I love learning new things.
Theory: Theory debates are cool! I don't think you should come into the round prepared to run theory, but if it comes up, go for it! I will most likely agree with the person who brought up the theory argument in the first place, but everything is relative and if they did so with no prior "abuse" as it were, then I will weigh it differently.
Thanks for reading this far if you did, and good luck in the round!
Debated:
2021-2025---Shawnee Mission East (Water, NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, IPR)
Background Information:
He/Him
Call me whatever. I'd prefer Jaxson, but I don't really care.
My email is jaxterreros@gmail.com
Debate style heavily influenced by Jet, Jimin, Jacob, and Owen.
General Thoughts:
Tech > truth
Clarity > Speed
I will adjudicate any argument that is won technically, but I'd rather not listen to things like inequality good and wipeout.
Email Subject Line: Round #---Tournament---Team XY [AFF] v Team XY [NEG]
I'm pretty split down the middle when it comes to leaning policy vs k. I've read affs with plans and without.
Michigan Slop (Process CPs) are not cheating - if they're terrible for debate - beat it.
Condo is 100% good, but holy I love condo bad.
Go for competing interps over reasonability.
Just send a card doc, I would really prefer a round where I don't need to go through the cards as you've given me the necessary warrants, but that's not always gonna happen.
Speaks:
To get them up: Be kind, clarity, good in-round vision, as Owen Williams says, "going for the impact turn"
To get them down: No disclosure, being rude, having to get cleared
If you're being racist, a bigot, or anything that is actively harmful, have fun with a 0 and an L!!!
Case:
I LOVE IMPACT TURNS - IF YOU GOT THEM READ THEM.
Good case debating sways my ballot so much more than you think is possible.
K Affs/FW:
Been on both sides, I can go either way.
Fairness is an in-round impact, clash is a model impact. Fairness should be described as the aff is unfair in this round - your ballot cannot resolve their theory of power, but it can resolve this one instance of in-round unfairness. I don't get the fear of going for clash, just go for it if you want. If it sounds like you're reading clash blocks, but just replaced the word clash with fairness you should stop and question it.
The theory of power needs to be strong. I know it sounds obvious, but I've seen one too many K affs that don't have a point besides teams trying to be shifty.
I love aff !/T to FW, I heavily value competing interpretations, but I think !/T is very strong. However, going for one requires proving solvency, which gets lost in the sauce a lot of the time. You need to be clear on how you can resolve the turn, rather than just saying "fairness is bad vote them down" you should explain the mechanism on why the aff is able to change that.
Topicality/Theory:
Reasonability is winnable, but just go for a competing interp it makes the debate so much better.
I have a very high threshold for winning topicality, I think there needs to be a genuine violation of the resolution. For example, if you read something like "T - increase" then give me a quantifiable number and say the aff doesn't meet that. Even if you did the math to prove it, that's gotta be the most arbitrary interp that is so clearly not a violation of the resolution.
As above, love condo, will vote on condo bad.
I think all other theory has a high threshold for me to vote on. I've won on really stupid theory before, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it.
I hate to be that person, but hidden ASPEC is hidden ASPEC, however, if I don't hear it, then you say they dropped it...I'm not voting on that.
CPs:
CPs are amazing, we should read them more often.
I love process CPs. I'm very in the middle of competition thought. I agree they're probably cheating, but if the aff can't defend on why that's bad, then why does that matter?
I think PICs are good. Defend the whole aff!!!
I don't think the neg should be able to fiat international actors.
Consult CPs are terrible, but competition is competition.
I default to judge kick.
DAs:
DAs are obviously amazing.
Do turns case analysis.
Read specific links over generics.
Compare evidence. Why does your link o/w their no link?
K:
Read Ks you know, if you're reading the Nexus K to fill time... let's just change it out.
Rejection alts are fake and terrible.
Articulate your links. You don't need to spam 10 new links in the 2NC, instead extend the ones you read in the 1NC and add maybe one or two more, it'll make the debate so much cleaner, and much easier to vote for you because you can give me actual in-depth explanations of why specifically the aff links to your theory of power and is not to the status quo, which is what I think a lot of link explanations falls short at. If you can't articulate the link as a way the aff worsens it, then I can't vote for it. However, luckily the alt and impact set the UQ, so prove it.
If you're kicking the alt - the reason has to make sense.
Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com
Current KU Debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.
General.
Tech >>> Truth.
Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:
1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.
2. Please, please, please slow down on T, perms, framework, and theory. Making sure I can understand the nuance of these arguments that require a lot of depth is super important.
3. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.
Clarity >>> speed. You do not need to be the fastest to be the best debater.
I am very comfortable clearing you. If I have to clear you multiple times I will stop flowing.
I won't judge kick unless told to.
I flow straight down.
Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.
Slightly longer sentences >>> buzz words.
Condo and disclosure are likely the only reason to reject the team for theory.
I value author quals pretty high.
If you take away one thing from this do not be afraid to slow down for very important parts of the debate. The more nuance I get on my flow makes it easier to break ties if they are not resolved in the rebuttals.
Policy Affs.
Having 2-4 impacts with justifiable internal links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having 20 impacts in the 1AC
Durable fiat only goes so far. Affs should use their plan text to get out of neg tricks when it comes to getting out of durable fiat.
Be prepared to justify your assumptions. If you lose to the K a lot it’s likely because you are not justifying why the theory of the aff is good. This is especially true for IR/security debates.
Kritical Affs/Nontopical affs.
I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Presumption is kinda meh for me. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff is good.
T debates are kinda my worst nightmare. I can flow but damn do y’all go sooooo fast on your 2ac blocks which makes me sometimes lose the intricacies of the T response.
Impact turning >>> our model solves. I think our model solves loses to predictability most times so I would prefer just impact turning clash or fairness.
I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.
Good answers to a TVA are a must. If you win the res will never incorporate your advocacy and your advocacy is good then it is pretty easy to me to vote for you even if the neg wins a clash/procedural fairness arg.
I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.
Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.
DAs.
DAs that are 3 cards long with 2 sentences highlighted are cringe. Pls read warrants. Just bc your author says something doesn’t mean it is automatically true. Including the justification in the ev is vital.
Timeframe is underutilized. Most teams use it well in the Econ DA v climate adv but forget about it when it comes to other affs. Only one extinction can happen!
X neg impact inevitable under Y Aff impact is persuasive but without some form of defense will not win you the debate.
CPs.
You need to slow down on competition. I cannot flow 7 standards for functional competition good that are all half a sentence long.
CPs should compete, you tell me what frame to use. That saying, I'm not a fan of textual competition hate.
Basically every judge ever would rather vote on a solvency deficit than competition. I am one of those judges. This doesn't mean I would never go for competition in front of me but If you are confident in a deficit that has an quantifiable/qualifiable impact go for it.
CPs should be legitimate and compete.
Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Artificial competition is bad.
Kritical CPs often are not competitive or just not real.
Competition tricks are often not persuasive.
K v Policy.
Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.
Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.
Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.
I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.
Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.
K v K.
Most people do not like these debates and I understand why but a good K v K debate is one of my favorites.
Reading the generic Escalante party alt plus links from a camp file that don’t really apply makes cap debaters look bad.
Affs should get perms. Are they abusive sometimes? Yes. Are no perms worse? Yes.
The most important parts of these debates is establishing competition. If you’re gonna read a K in the 1NC then be ready to defend the alt’s explanation of why X happens.
T-USFG/Framework.
Procedural fairness >>> probably every other impact.
The block and especially the 2nr should only extend one.
Aff counter interps are often pretty bad and don’t solve a lot. Negs should point out the aff impact turns to fairness probably link to the counter interpretation or are not solved by it.
Speeding through these debates are kinda awful to flow.
Clear sign-posting is probably the most important out of most things in this debate.
Group DAs most of them have the same thesis.
2-4 really solid DAs with impacts that connect to case >>> 20 one line DAs with barely and impact.
TVAs are important to me. I don’t think it’s the burden of the neg to prove that the aff could be topical and not reading a TVA is still a winning strat but winning that level of offense kinda makes the debate super easy to vote neg.
SSD needs to be explained better if you are going to go for it.
T.
Competing interps >>> reasonability.
I think fairness can be an impact.
Aff ground and overlimiting are underused.
Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can defo change my preference.
Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.
Spamming defense without nuance in the 2ac is bad.
Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).
Theory.
Interp wording is vital. I dislike neg strats that default to just calling the aff interp arbitrary. I think all theory is arbitrary its more a question of competing interps.
nonresolutional theory args are 2n copium at best
Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.
I don't think judge kick is a voter but a dropped 1ar argument can change that.
I think dropping theory sucks because most time its bad and doesn't link. Auto voting down teams bc of this where I find myself questioning tech over truth but I will try my best to maintain my a fair environment. Tbh I would rather just reject the arg ie someone drops floating piks bad and I just reject the alt.
Procedurals also follow most of this but I think this is definitely where I can be convinced more on reasonability. Aff teams that say something problematic should not go all in on "their interp is arbitrary," after saying a slur. I'm sure this might make some ultra-tech people upset but being problematic inround outweighs and probably ruins the education value of debate
If you got this far please don't make fun of my lack of grammar :)
Hi! I'm Josie (she/her), this is my second year of debate and I went to NSDA nats '22 and '23 in World Schools debate.
I'm definitely flexible-but here are some of my preferences:
-Aff case: Be as clear as possible with your plan and the logistics of your plan. It's hard to judge if I don't understand what I'm judging on to the fullest extent. (also, this should go without saying, but I can totally tell if you don't understand what you're running..know about what you're running before going to the tournament pleaseeee)
-DAs: case-specific DAs are more fun imo but use a general DA if you want (as long as you can link effectively)
-T: run it if you want but I think they're kinda boring tbh-I probably won't be super on board unless the aff interp is like super abusive
-CPs: I literally love cps so much they're so fun 10/10 recommend
-Ks: Im not super familiar with Ks, but I think they can work really well from what I've seen (but only if you know what you're doing with them).
-Theory: Again, I'm not super familiar, I don't run into/run theory often, but I think it's fine in certain contexts (if the other team was clearly abusive)
-I wanna be able to hear you; I'm not more impressed by spreading than I am by having clear, comprehendible arguments.
-I couldn't care less if you choose to do open cx-just clarify before the round
-Your job during rebuttals is to summarize your arguments, your opponent's arguments, and why I should prefer your argument. Your clarity with this can make or break a round.
-If you're rude to the other team in any way you will automatically lose the round. (not flexible on this one)