Girl just debate lol

He/Him

3rd year debater at Blue Valley SouthWest

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

--

Novice Debate

--

Top-level

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

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

FORENSICS: If possible, I PREFER PUBLIC ADDRESS EVENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE:

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

Thus, REGARDING JUDGING Interp Rounds:

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

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

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

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

email chain - um202105@umich.edu

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

ill prob think the 2ar won the debate

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

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

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

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

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

jokes over truth over tech

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

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

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

bvsw '24

she/her

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

she/her

BVSW '26

add me to the email chain: bvswtk@gmail.com

Top Level -Extend your arguments. Most everyone makes great arguments early on but never extend them. Please. I beg you.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. I am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth. Love a good theory arg,

Disads - like them, please explain your UQ

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates.

Theory - If your a novice debate: no worries. But any properly executed theory args are great. love a good condo arg.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate.

BVSW '24

amyblloyd6@gmail.com

Pronouns: they/them

Email: ogminor26@gmail.com or 10203550@students.usd497.org

2nd year varsity debater at LFS, I will understand your arguments. Feel free to email me afterwards too for additional help/clarification. I've gone for DAs, CPs, and Ks.

Ask me questions before the round-- I will be happy to explain.

If you disagree with my decision, tell me and we can have that discussion.

Tell me what I am voting on and why you've won the argument. Pleaseeee use comparative impact calculus (tell me why your impacts are bigger/more probable/will happen sooner than theirs).

The biggest thing that happens in novice debates is no clash. Don't just read cards at each other, do warrant comparison (tell me why your card is better).

I'm pretty familiar with UBI, not so much with GND or SS2100. That being said, I'll probably catch on quick, please don't use up rebuttal or constructive time explaining it.

Tech > Truth (this is where warrant comparison comes in!)

Dropped arguments: I will assume they are true automatically but if you point out the other team dropped an arg and you tell me why it's really important, I'll evaluate it in my decision.

CPs: I love counterplans, especially when it avoids a DA. But you still need to win the link level on the DA otherwise they get a perm to the CP. You need to have offense on solvency by the end of the 2NR, and I always appreciate an argument about how you solve their advantages better. Perms are key for aff, I'll probably always vote aff on the perm if you can explain how it avoids linking to a DA.

DAs: See above. Internal links are really important, and DAs are where impact calculus is crucial. In my experience, a lot of novice debates (at least at this point in the season) tend to not engage with impacts and will gravitate towards non-uniqueness or no link. This is fine, but impacts are important!!

Ks: I'm pretty familiar with Cap, I won't evaluate it if there's no framework on either side though. Do the work on why your framework is better, and don't drop it. It's gonna be pretty clear that you don't understand the K in CX so don't run it if you don't understand it.

T: If you're running T, emphasize what it means when you face a nontopical aff (IE education, fairness, clash). I think T debates get messy quick, so reasonability or arbitrariness is a good way to my ballot. I tend to flow aff on T arguments HOWEVER that doesn't mean I'm going to reject your T argument. Especially if the aff is clearly nontopical lol.

Case: This is probably pretty obvious but you have to win solvency on the advantages. I think a lot of novice teams read inherency automatically, but I think going for inherency is underrated.

Random (sorta) important things:

• Please be kind. Rude people get the 4.
• Keep track of prep time, I will be timing but don't rely on me.
• I don't shake hands cuz germs but I will fist bump you!!!
• Judge instruction is underutilized.
• READ PARADIGMS!!
• Don't drop arguments.
• I will understand speed but clarity is more important. Be respectful if your opponents ask you to slow down.
• Obviously any form of discrimination or hatred is not tolerated, you will automatically lose, get the 3 and 4, and I will report you to the tournament.
• Don't go for case and a CP in the same 2NR.
• I won't do the work for you when evaluating the round, please don't expect me to.
• I will not flow new off case in the block. It's abusive and leads to bad debates.

A lot of the above may seem obvious but sometimes novices need reminders and that's okay!! You're learning! Have fun! :)

bvsw '24

he/him

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

BVSW '26

he/him

add me to the email chain - braydenpresley30@gmail.com

"The important thing is that your teammates have to know you're pulling for them and you really want them to be successful." - Kobe Bryant

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!

Olathe North Junior -- 2a/1n -- lynnsetter@gmail.com

Not debating much right now, I know how the IRS, a UBI, Social Security, medicare, etc. function, but you still need to tell me how it's relevant to your aff/neg

Hey novices! You're just starting to debate, so the number one rule is to have fun!

Basic opinions:

Evidence/argumentation: You're more likely to win a round if you know what you're talking about instead of reading your varsity debaters old blocks. if you can analyze a round in real time with your own evidence you will understand and participate in the round so much more!

As a debater I tend to lean more truth > tech, but if you drop the da and it's impacts... you can not win the argument.

Ballot framing!! If you tell me why you should win and the other team doesn't, I'm more likely to vote for you!

Flow: If you can read off your flow, try! You're a lot less likely to drop arguments!

Policy: I love a good da/cp combo, as long as you can explain. your. links. Please. I've ran and gone for T plenty of times, but don't bring T into the 2nr with three minutes of fairness and limits, tell me that their aff doesn't fit the resolution.

K's: Not my favorite argument, and you're going to need to explain the premise and the lit pretty well, but I'll listen to it. However, it would be low on my list of recommendations for novices.

Aff: As a 2a, I will have a lot of respect for the 2a, but also know how to utilize your prep time the most affectively so you can get your 1a enough time for the 1ar. Extend your impacts and explain, don't just say "extend our impact," and respond to case so you don't get destroyed in the block. If you can, please do your 2ar off your flow! it will sound so good!!

If you really want to run condo bad, go for it, but as a novice I don't think there's a real point.

Have fun and tell a joke!! You can do it!!

BVSW '24

Michigan '28

rishishetty@gmail.com

bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

TL;DR

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

Topicality vs K Affs

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Affs vs Ks

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplan Competition

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

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

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

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

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

DAs

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

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

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

Random Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm always down for a postround.

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

she/her

bvsw '26

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

Be kind, be polite, have fun!! :)