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.)

Avery Amerio (she/her)

Updated Oct. 2023.

TLDR;

I debated for ONW, current senior at KU studying History, and haven't debated in years (but I do judge quite a bit when I can.)

Policymaker to my core. Frame the round for me and I'll evaluate it--whatever you consider to be advantageous to the round (with discretion.) I don't usually have one thing I vote on, but it typically comes down to a DA (of some sort) or impact calc. But, never say never!

Please ask me questions, I will try to give you as much feedback as I can!

Debate Technicalities:

Please be nice and civil. I don't think I need to elaborate on this point!

I flow on paper (please signpost) + I flow framing separately for organizational purposes. If you're just extending tags and not tags + warrants, you're really not doing a lot.

You can speed if your opponent is okay with it. Please slow down for tags and theory so I can catch everything! If I can't make anything out, I'll clear you once. After that, there is no guarantee that everything will be on the flow.

Any argument that involves a postmodern/post-industrial/dystopian world (aka spark, dedev, wipeout, extinction-good, etc) is not my vibe.

Random Notes:

If you ask the aff to disclose, it is fair for the neg to do the same.

I don't know if it's a recent phenomenon but I'm not a fan of debaters referencing my paradigm in speeches. Crack a dad joke instead if you feel like it.

I do have RBF--I promise I am not upset with anything lol.

Policy Arguments:

T: I believe that the aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, and the neg has to argue and explain why the plan is harmful for xyz reasons. My T flow usually tends to lack ink so I rarely vote for it, but never say never.

DA: I love DAs, I will listen to any. Case-specific DAs are gorgeous and beautiful, and politics scenarios are a personal favorite. Link chains and impacts turns are underutilized in my opinion.

CP: I’m neutral on these. I like seeing a DA + CP in a strat. Just saying that "the counterplan does it better" doesn't really do anything for me.

K: Given the nature of my undergrad, I am decently well-versed in this area. I understand cap, set-col, fem, and neolib (the usual contenders), but I’ll listen if you walk me through it. Debaters have a tendency to say that an alt/the world of the alt is "waiting, creating something else, or rejecting the aff. I'm not going to vote on the K if that's the case because it hasn't proven anything. If you have a specific alt/world of the alt that includes a strategic move or impacts that will happen, then I am all ears.

Theory: In a strategic sense, I think theory is an important part of debate. However, it is not something to use because you have nothing else. Having it on the flow from surface level work doesn't really add much, unless you are taking the time to give me more w/ the argument. Please tell me how debate will be altered/what implications will occur because of xyz, and I will listen and consider.

My Experience: Three years of Debate and two of Forensics at Olathe Northwest High School. Most common round type: slow flow. Enjoyed both policy and congressional debate. However, I didn't participate in policy debate in college.

Overall: I default to a blend of Stock Issues and Policymaker. For example, if you have a huge impact but cannot convince me that it's likely to happen, I am not going to weigh it as much as a pure policymaker might. If the Neg proves that the Aff's plan has already been enacted in full, I would consider that as basically a Neg win, even if the Aff claims massive advantages. I could be persuaded to view the round differently, but it will be harder than with a pure Tabula Rasa judge. I like to see clash and would prefer the round be dominated by specific, creative arguments with in-round impacts.

Speed: I didn't spread very much when I debated and am even more rusty now. I will be able to keep up if you speak faster than normal, but I won't be able to keep up if you go all-out. Please signpost, slow down for tags, and ask me if you would like me to give you a sign if I am not understanding you.

Cross Examination: I'm fine with open or closed, but will default to the most restrictive preference from the four of you. If we end up with open Cross-X, I still expect that the majority of questions and answers come from the debaters who would be speaking.

Behavior: It's important to remember that debate is a contest, not a battle. Make sure to be courteous towards others and to presume their good faith. Let's make the round fun for you, your opponents, and me. Thanks!

Specific Arguments:

Topicality, Theory, and Kritiks: I tend to group T, Theory, and Ks together because they often have out-of-round impacts. As these arguments claim impacts on the real world because of my vote, I reserve the right to use my real-world knowledge and political beliefs to evaluate them, even though I am Tabula Rasa on other issues. On all of these, I default to rejecting the arguments, not the team. When I debated, I tended to like T a lot, Theory and Framework less, and Kritiks even less, and that is still generally how I think about them.

On T, I tend to default to competing interpretations, but could be persuaded otherwise. Otherwise, make sure you can articulate why your standards matter for the debate round. Don't just read a T block once; make sure to do your work here on all parts of the argument. Overall, I tend to like T and think it can be done very well (by both teams), but would prefer to avoid hearing T on a case that's obviously topical.

On theory, I'll need to see your opponents violating your framework for it to matter in the round. If you read theory or framework in the 1AC or 1NC without your opponent having violated it already, I likely won't interpret it as favorably. On the other hand, if you make the argument after they have done so and demonstrate the negative consequences (such as with vagueness), that feels better to me. On the other (other) hand, I tend not to like theory if the debate devolves into only a discussion of out-of-round consequences (although this is necessary in a few cases). A good theory debate for me will often act similarly to a T debate: I would like standards work, voting issues, etc.

On Kritiks, I typically don't like them unless you do the work. If the Kritik doesn't have an alt or an out-of-round impact, it's a DA (which is great!). If it does have an out-of-round impact, I think you'd really need to walk me through the literature and how you get to a positive impact outside of the debate carefully to earn my vote.

Inherency, Solvency, and Other Case: Great! I think it's kind of cool when a lot of debate ends up on case. See the overall section above for some examples of how I evaluate this. It's fine if the Aff doesn't have much here in the 1AC in order to focus on the advantages, but make sure to be ready to defend them from the Neg in further speeches.

Disadvantages and Counterplans: DAs and CPs are great too. For DAs, I like specific links, but understand that you sometimes have to use generic ones (especially if you have T on the flow). If the Aff's only response to the link is that it's generic, that will not be enough to get me to disregard the DA. If you run a Politics DA, make sure you have updated cards. I assume that CPs are conditional unless otherwise specified, but would hear out a theory argument about this (see theory above). I enjoy creative perms, turns, etc.

Framing and Impacts: Please elaborate at least a little on which impacts are the most important. I will not change my default framing with a one sentence argument, even if the other team doesn't respond. However, I'm open to most impact framings if elaborated on.

Questions? Please ask!

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

I approach judging from a largely tabula rasa place. That said, without other direction from the teams I will default to policy maker. Weight the advantages and the disadvantages for me as that calculus is critical. I prefer well thought out arguments that are well presented over a huge number of generic arguments. I almost never vote on Topicality. Speed is fine as long as the quality of your speaking, presentation, or argument doesn't lag as a result.

Qualifications: I am a 4th year debater and I am highly active in debate and forensics. I have qualified for nationals 3 times in different forms of debate

Judging style:

• I will flow, so I know when you drop arguments, please do not say a team dropped an argument when you know they did not. (It is my biggest pet- peeve.)
• I will follow well so it is extremely important- even if you don't have evidence- give analyticals!! Well thought out and explained analyticals can be very helpful. I think it is very important for an educational debate, that serves a purpose to understand what you are talking about.
• use cross ex wisely.
• As for on- case arguments, solvency is so important, if you can prove the affirmative cannot solve for everything they say they solve for, you win.
• Too many people get caught up in topicality, it is the biggest time waster in a round so do not drop it- but do not waste your time.
• For off- case arguments DAs and CPs (in my opinions) are the most productive use of your time.
• Theory debate gets a thumbs up
• I also will not tolerate any kind of sexism, racism, or homophobia- I will immediately vote to the other team regardless of how good your arguments are, and I will report it to the tournament director. No one should feel like debate is not a safe place for all to express themselves and be educational.
• Good luck and have fun, debate is very important to the education of our youth and I am happy to judge!

aidanfoust06@gmail.com

I have been debating at Olathe East since 2020. I currently compete in DCI.

I prefer tech over truth

I hate judge intervention so tell me how I should evaluate and what impacts I should prioritize

If you are reading off your computer put in the doc please if not I will mark you down

Case arguments

I love smart analytics here people should do more of this and I'm willing to vote on presumption

T

I have experience reading T in every neg round I have had in DCI

tell me which standards to prioritize also tell me what impact is most important and how the standards interact with each other

k

I like k arguments I have ran anthro, Cap, Set Col, Oreintlsim, and a few other K's

explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.

I don’t care how generic the 1NC is as long as the block contextualizes it.

counter plans

I will not judge kick

I think counterplan's are cool and a good way to solve the aff

da

I have pretty good experience doing DA's

I love Da's I wish people did more case cross application here (ie we are winning this on the DA this is how it implicates the aff)

I'm also fine with wipeout

"If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions on my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands." - Owen Crouch

I go by Alex, and my pronouns are she/her. I am a former open debater and I am an assistant debate coach. I work as an elementary speech-language pathologist, so speech is a big component of my life.

Background/Voting:

As a former debater, I can usually follow along with arguments. I am open to hearing any type of arguments, but I tend to focus heavily on clarity/links of arguments (like a lay judge). I am receptive to hearing any type of argument though, as long as it is clear. I want you to have fun, so really, do whatever you think is best. Just make sure I can follow along.

I try to keep my personal opinions/beliefs outside of the arguments. I want you to convince me to vote for you, and I don't want my personal beliefs and biases to affect that. I will always come in with the thought that I will vote for either team, regardless if I personally agree or disagree with what you are arguing. Winning is contingent on you convincing me that your argument is best, and to do that, you can't just read a bunch of evidence. You will need to summarize an apply that evidence to your argument.

Rate of Speech/Speaking Style

I do not like speed reading (spreading). I am a speech-therapist and spreading drives me absolutely bonkers. It affects your articulation and your fluency. I do believe (based on my area of work) spreading can be unfair to opponents so, for fairness, don't spread. If you want me to hear your argument please don't do it. With that being said, have seen debaters with articulation, fluency (i.e. stuttering), other speech disorders. If that is something that is a concern to you, don't worry! That will not affect your speaker points, and if you are super worried about it, feel free to let me know.

Misc.

I will keep a flow of the round, and I heavily suggest you do as well. Also- I do not tend to keep time. I will sometimes set a timer, but a good chunk of the time, I forget. Please keep your own time. If you ask me how much prep you have left, I probably will not know. So be responsible of your own time. If there are arguments about times, I'm going to make my best judgement to help, but that will likely be the best I can do.

Be respectful to your opponents. Respect pronouns, don't be racist, etc. You can disagree with a person and have heated debate related arguments, but don't be a jerk. If you are blatantly disrespecting an opponent/if anything extreme is happening, I will report it to your respective coach.

I have no preference regarding if I am included on email chains or not. If a team would like to include me, please email alexandra.ginsberg@usd497.org and please let me know once you have emailed (emails tend to go in spam).

Overall: As long as there is clarity in your argument and you can show me that you understand your argument(s), you are good to go. I want you to have fun, just make sure I understand what is happening, and that you don't seem lost yourself.

Overall: if you are clear about your arguments and can show me you understand what you are saying (and not just reading), we are good to go.

ONW debate 2020 - 2022 -> KU Debate 2022 - Current

She/They

T/L: I am good with any argument. Just don't be problematic and/or rude

K Teams: On the affirmative we run a K aff and I have ran a soft left aff in the past, on the negative I primary run set col but am familiar with other Ks. Fw is pretty important and explaining the role of the ballot / role of the judge. Its good to explain why your model of debate is better than the one they are proposing.

Policy teams: I am not that familiar with pics, you can still run them but I will be learning during the round. If the purpose of aff / neg isn't laid out I default to "Does the aff make the world better than the squo?". I don't usually vote for condo unless there is clear in round abuse and its the majority of the 2ar. If there are dropped args you don't have to take a long time extending them, just 10 quick seconds to say something like "they dropped x... conceded, flows to us" and if it matters for other arguments go more into that then.

Don't be mean to your partner, good luck <3

I was raised in the stock issues tradition as a high school debater, but exposed to a variety of styles at regional and national tournaments and camps. I prefer debate to be persuasive, rather than a mere exercise in who can speak more words per minute, however, drops matter. While I am open to other paradigms/styles, I find that too much departure from stock issues leads to debates about debate, instead of debates about the resolution. That said, I am just expressing my personal preference. Ultimately, persuade me that you're the winner no matter which path you take.

hi i’m eliza and i’m a second year debater!!

generally, please be kind to the other team in round. i will not tolerate any sexist, racist, or xenophobic dialogue.

speed: read at a pace that can be understood, but i don’t care if you are fast

please make sure you are telling me why i should vote for you!! extend arguments and point out what the other team dropped!! i will only vote on things if you are telling me why i should

good luck! have fun! if you have any questions after the round you can email me at 3092934@smsd.org

Quinn Largent pronouns: ????? Let’s just go with They/Them for now

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 5/8/24)

Trad,LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

Tech > Truth. unless told to evaluate arguments diffrently.

I'm comfortable in any type of debate. I adapt to you not the other way around. Email me if anything doesn't make sense in the paradigm I'm horrible at typing.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have.

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you. (this is one of the few things I can't be convinced of otherwise)

Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, cops good, Inequality good. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add)

TLDR:

Do what you want

there are no rules of debate just guidelines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and I'll vote for it. everything is always up for debate. (do not do this to novices or people that you are just leagues above speaks will be affected but won't change if u win or lose)

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not so I will vote on out-of-round issues as long as there is proof because I can't vote on just he said she said scenario.

Specifics for adapting in the round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

extend your arguments this means you have a claim and warrant and what that means for the round

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or whatever ur using.

I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

Speaks

30 - literally perfect i have zero things I would change (I don't think I'll give these out like ever)

29.5+ - go win the tourney

29+ - go break

28.5 - average

below this is just below average for the tourney

yes speaks change depending on skill of tourney (the 30 doesnt)

If i can tell you who won ask me questions.

----- Plan AFFs -----

I have experience reading soft-left AFFs (native water rights on water), big stick AFFs (OCOs on NATO FJG on Fiscal redistribution), and both (UBI on Fiscal redistribution)

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues). There is zero risk of case, especially with how bad plan texts are getting.

JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument. (this is amplified even harder after the fiscal topic because holy christ)

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff. (The burden of explanation does not change no matter what happened in the round idc how little they have responded)

----- K AFFs -----

have experience reading them (deluze queer aff on nato and set col/ablism on fiscal redistrubution).

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw. Fairness is an IL. just yelling the round is unfair means nothing to me what does it being unfair mean does it means its harder for you to win if so tell me why. --- i think a lot of aff and neg teams don't do enough turns case analysis against both sides. doing that will make my ballot a lot less frustrating.

how negs should go for FW: it should have impacts based on actions of the round exaberated by what the spefic sytle of the aff or lit basis of the aff does to debate or the round. Good TVA is sick. if identity related explain how being untopical affects that said identity. more spec FW is the more likley i might like voting on it.

ROB/ROJ: these are diffrent to me they arent the same(If the round makes them the same tho ill evaulate it as such) ROB means what my ballot should be doing when i vote. ROJ is how i weigh and view the round that is taking place

KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

Neg teams reads counterplans and DAs there normally are pretty good against some k affs

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)

You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appresciated

i default to competing interps.

Affs extned your actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact. i will vote neg on presumption if the 2ar is just 5 minutes of you saying u are topical

Its your burden to prove that the aff is topical and a good idea just winning its topical doesnt mean you win the aff is a good idea.

----- CPs -----

(if sending counterplan docs dont title it CP please god i dont need that being saved in my computer)

Condo: ill vote if u win it. i went for it a lot senior year

Neg: have a net benefit.

ill be honest i ran a counterplan very few times and the times i went for it is even less. ill probably think about it very similary to a alt on a K because thats something im used to

Judge kick: TBH never done this in a round never ran against it and tbh I think its bad because it means I'm making a strategic decision for the negative for them. i mean if the neg tells me to judge kick ig I will unless the aff tells me not to for some reason.

IDK WHAT JUDGE KICK IS THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF CONDO MEANS LIKE THAT DOESNT HAVE A WARRANT HOW IS IT LOGICAL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bads. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team

----- DAs -----

NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly link paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.

------ Ks -----

More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.

I am decently well versed in K literature. I have read biopower, capitalism, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, statecrafting, decolozation, Setller colonialism,anthro and queer theory. However, it seems that the way authors are read in debate varies from the source material, and from round-to-round, so explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.

Link: after doing K debate a while good K teams will devolpe more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independent reject teams/links because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained in how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA

If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K

LD paradigm

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: tech > truth when I began debate I thought these were bad and hated them. now i realize teams should just win the debate against them on 1 of two levels.

Theory: they shouldn't be in debate and why

Debate them: why the theory is untrue bad etc.

PFD paradigm

just debate ill flow and ill vote on offense. i don't really see how this is much different then policy minus a few things. Tech>truth ill vote on anything

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i want put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again as a prewarning sorry.

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

once again sorry.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Once again sorry

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

I debated for four years in high school and competed in mainly Policy and Congress, but did a bit of PFD as well. I keep a tight flow and would like to be included on the speechdrop if used just so I can stay on top of stuff (as long as the competitors have no objections). When it comes to speed I can pretty much roll with whatever. I can keep up with fast speed, but I'm not a fan of spreading. I prefer good arguments to throwing out whatever you can in the hopes of overwhelming the team.As far as arguments go, I tend to be mainly focused on stock issues. Solvency, Advantage attacks, good DAs, and Topicality (I seriously love a good T) will sway me the most in the round. I feel like Inherency tends to be pretty weak, but if you think you can win on it than go for it. Counter Plans are fine, but they have to be mutually exclusive. If the Aff proves they can perm, that's all that they really have to do for me to flow it to them. Kritiks were never really my strong suit and I never ran theory arguments, but I debated them and can understand them. If you run them just tell me why it matters, and if it's a Kritik, just make sure you have an alt. Other than that, just have fun and be respectful. Debate can get heated (especially during CX), but at the end of the day it's just something that we're passionate about and (hopefully) enjoy doing. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask at the start of the round!

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.

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

¡Hola!

Please add me to the email chain. I DO NOT USE SPEECH DROP OR FILE SHARE

isaackudebate@gmail.com

General Info:

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Pronouns – They/He

Spearman High School TX 2022

University of Kansas 2026

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge>Isaac

I competed in Congress in High School competitively, and now policy in College.

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 10/06/2023**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I do not really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Economic Inequality Topic:

I really enjoyed the policy debates I saw at the JDI this summer. I have a few personal opinions about this topic myself, but nothing too drastic on how I view my ballot.

Few Policy Notes:

I think the 50 states Counter Plan is a good debate arg, but I need some unpacking here. I need a reason why the USFG is a bad actor and why you can fiat all 50 states to be on-board.

Evidence:

I like cards and I also like blocks. Your effort in cutting cards will not go unnoticed, but it must contribute to the debate. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

K:

As a K reader myself, I am a very good judge to K teams. I am fairly kept up with Latinx literature, Cap K lit, as well as some of Berlant. I just need a link to why the 1AC is bad, or I will have a hard time voting for you. I look at the K as a way to think about if the fundamentals in aff are good. I encourage the reading of Ks, but try to be as clear as you can with them.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

I think this debate is fine. I enjoy clash debates. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Condo:

Kinda tricky for me. I think Condo has its issues on both sides. I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

T:

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many CPs you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. Discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction, unless if you drop condo.

Be nice to each other. I get debate is an intense game and it can get heated, but it's not fun when you are being bullies to your opponents.

Some judges to reference for the spots I have not covered: Will Soper, Luna Schultz, Dr. Scott Harris, and Dr. Brett Bricker and the rest of the KU Coaching staff.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate :)

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

Tabula Rasa; I'll vote on stock issues absent a clear alternative brought forth during the debate. Critical thinking, the ability to think quickly and adapt on your feet will probably be more effective than the evidence you present in the round.

I like well structured arguments with clear signposts.

I enjoy a debate with good clash. Negative spread is important. The ability to extend arguments through rebuttals is a rare skill set. This shouldn't be as difficult for the affirmative, but too often true extension is ignored.

Too often evidence is taken as read without real challenge. Most policy debate contains evidence that is primarily based on expert opinion (exploring bias is a legitimate argument) and too little actual research. Proving cause and effect is difficult. If you can do that you'll be in a better position.

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.

shawnee mission east '25

she/her

lucy.pace@icloud.com

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

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

general thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

t---meh

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

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

GENERAL BELIEFS/JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

- There's something unsaid about judging that debaters tend not to realize, and many judges themselves may not even consciously realize. In the round, the judge is basically weighing two things: which team do I want to vote for, and which team can I justify voting for.

Your goal, as a debater, is to be both of those teams at the same time. If you know in the round that you aren't both of those teams, your job is to either convince me to do enough work to vote for a team I think is objectively losing, or present arguments so methodical and damning that even if I despise you, there is no room for debate.

I will try as much as I possibly can to let the debaters debate the round. I will not make an argument for a team: the question is how much work I am willing to do in my mind to "fill in the gaps" of an argument for the debaters, as long as they made the argument in general. I believe that, more than other judges, I am willing to do the work for the team I think is losing, but I want to vote for, if they can present the right pathways for a reasonable ballot. You would do well to keep this in mind as the debate progresses.

- It's also important to remember that judges judge rounds because they want to enjoy it. Therefore, a team that actually makes the effort to make me enjoy a round will go a lot farther than the team that doesn't. Actually reading this paradigm will help you with that significantly.

- In general, I think debaters put too much emphasis on "reading cards." What's vastly more important to me is the logical arguments you make. I have and will judge rounds based almost entirely on analytics.

- Similarly, I "flow" cross-x. Furthermore, if you make a terrible response to a profound or hilarious question about your argument, I may in fact sort of disregard your argument on face. Any logical contradictions the other team exposes in cross-x are damning, and I also think debaters should make a better point to capitalize on such mistakes in cross-x and extend those arguments into their full speeches.

- On the other hand, however, I will actually read and compare evidence more than other judges, and strongly dislike the amount of power-tagging that occurs in debate today.

- I have no problems with speed in general, but please do not use this as an excuse to mumble in monotone at me for 9 minutes. I will say clear if I can't understand you, and if I do it multiple times and you still don't change, I will stop flowing. You will know this happens if I close my laptop. Good speed-reading should sound like watching a youtube video on 2x speed -- clearly enunciated, clearly marking transitions and card titles, and easily understood -- just, you know, fast. I have no problem with speed, and I prefer when people talk faster. What I have a problem with is using speed as a bludgeon to "win a debate" without really debating anything at all.

- On this note, I am *extremely* sympathetic to Condo Bad. I think it's easily the most egregious abusive behavior in debate. Even assuming the aff does not read any theory on it at all, the absolute maximum amount of conditional off-case arguments I am willing to tolerate is generally around *5-6*, depending on the type of arguments ran (I am much, much more sympathetic to many small DAs and small PICs than I am to 6 big CPs or Ks). If you actually do run more than 6 off in a lazy out-spreading attempt, if the aff drops something, and you scream in front of me for your rebuttals that you deserve the ballot because they dropped the impact on your 9th spending DA, you will be unhappy to find that I likely won't be voting for you.

If you run multiple conditional arguments as the neg, and the aff reads basically any amount of condo bad theory in the round, (especially if you do, in fact kick out of almost all of them, thus proving the abuse), the amount of work I am willing to do to vote aff is pretty high.

BACKGROUND/ARGUMENT PREFERENCES:

I debated seven years. For almost my entire career I was a one/two off K and theory debater, but the "academic/philosophical nonsense" kind of Kritiks (Baudrilliard/Anarchy/Schmitt/Nietzsche etc) more than the "calling the other team/US/debate itself racist/sexist/etc." kind of Kritiks. If you are trying to pander to me, I find the former more interesting than the latter, but you can run whatever in front of me.

For better and for worse, I enjoyed debate, and still view debate, as a ridiculous game of pedantry. You can and should run anything you want in front of me, and I do mean anything. I have ran arguments so utterly deranged that your average policy wonk's head would explode hearing about them; nothing you could possibly read will surprise or offend me, and I will likely understand your K literature intimately. All the weird or "improper" arguments you haven't had an opportunity to throw out, now is your chance to run them. I will evaluate extinction good, nuclear war good, etc. If you have been dying to crack open your insane schizo arguments, your Nietzsche file, Schmitt, etc, rant about Accelerationism or the Demiurge, now is your chance.

Please don't view this as an excuse to just be a moron and run Time Cube without actually understanding why Time Cube was ran in the first place(hint: it wasn't just because its funny!). You aren't the WGLF. You will never be the WGLF. You don't understand the divinely four-sided cubic nature of debate, and you never will.

That being said, I can and will enjoy a good policy round. You can run 3 DA's and case just fine in front of me (I actually really really enjoy stupid little niche PICs). However, if you are trying to pander to me, please understand that while I will judge a Spending+Case round fairly and adequately, I might start to doze off at the wheel a little.

The only arguments you should be wary running in front of me are the Politics DA, and to a lesser extent T/Framework, the reasons for which I will cover below.

POLITICS:

You need to understand that, while I will vote for politics if I absolutely have to, I really, really despise the politics DA. When it comes to outrageously stupid link scenarios, Politics takes the cake for me, and I think the argument is pretty much nonsense. If any politics DA's had link scenarios that were even (generously) a 1% risk of being believable, the world would have ended in nuclear war 10,000 times after Trump was elected. The idea that I should legitimately imagine that the world will explode in nuclear hellfire because, I don't know, Mitch McConnell dies from an overly engorged boner after seeing the plan text is just ludicrous. Don't run it if you want to be the team I want to vote for. I also do in fact believe fiat solves the link is 100% valid, not abusive, and I will do the maximum amount of work for the aff on the point if you run it.

ROLE OF THE JUDGE/FRAMEWORK/FIAT/POLITICS CONT.

My other major problem with politics is that there is simply no convincing reason why, *by default*, I should pretend to be a hypothetical "policymaker" (whatever that means!) in a specific manner that allows the Politics DA to make sense. That somehow, I have to assume at face value that I have magical control over all the levers of government at once, but also simultaneously that I granularly implemented my magical control through the ballot in some arbitrary way that specifically pisses off Democrats in the Senate or something.

In a round, I will generally default to having magical powers over all government if absolutely nothing is said by the debaters, mostly just because that's what debaters seem to expect, so I think its fair. However, it is *trivial* for you to take me out of that zone with even the *implication* of a framework arg and I will happily do work in this regard.

More importantly, if you are committed to running politics, please give some real framework justifying the specific policymaker role of the judge for me. I won't necessarily default to a pattern that makes me care about the DA.

T/THEORY:

- I love a good T and theory debate. However my philosophy is simple -- if you're going to run it, run it for the right reasons, and actually understand the core argument. Can you actually spend a 6 minute rebuttal explaining the intricacies of the specific nuances your interpretation provides a level and interesting playing field for all sides in the debate? If are you just going to run it to time skew and/or flatly parrot "voters for fairness and education," understand that I will happily do the maximum amount of work required to justify voting against the argument.

My philosophy on T and theory debates are quite simple. I actually really really enjoy these debates -- when they are meaningful. The problem is that 99% of theory and especially topicality debates are ran in a way that is a gigantic waste of time for all parties involved.

For T, the reason its a nightmare is because it's almost never ran for any actually compelling definitional reasons. T is fun to listen to, and to argue, when the round centers around things like, emphatically claiming the use of the oxford comma in the resolution indicates a clear formation of a dependent clause, or that "resolved" with the colon implies that the aff must finish its plan in entirety. Topicality is interesting when it simulates real debate over textual interpretation of contracts and clauses that one would find in actual high-stakes litigation.

The problem is topicality is basically just always ran as a BS time skew for the neg and amounts to nothing. The neg just pulls a random violation out of a hat(the hat in this case being old camp file theory blocks that haven't been changed since 2008) to fill airtime in the 1nc and then immediately kicks them in the rebuttals. This is because the aff basically has to over-cover it or they lose instantly in front of the right(wrong) judge. Just because someone found a excerpt from some other legislation that defined "substantially reduce" as "a 50% decrease or more" doesn't mean that definition is in any way applicable to the topic at hand: I guarantee that if I told you I was only going to chop off 20% of your fingers, you would find that to be a pretty substantial reduction in fingers!

What's worse is that topicality is almost always just ran on blatantly topical affs. This is because everyone knows that a clearly untopical K aff is more than prepared to listen to your T arguments and you will probably be making a huge mistake to let them introduce their rebuttal at all. So T just ends up as this ridiculous charade to waste everyone's time, ran nearly exclusively in "pure" policy debates.

I don't want to listen to two teams read their old topicality voter blocks at each other for an hour with no clash and no specific addressing of the issues. This requires me to clean up the mess on the ballot in an unsatisfying manner for all parties involved. That being said, if you think you can do it well, I really do love a good debate on Framework/T/Theory.

CONCLUSION:

Above all, just remember that debate is not serious business -- debate is literally the most vacuous activity that has ever existed. Have some fun with it.

Sam Rinke

Olathe Northwest (2015-2019)

Contact: samrinke@gmail.com.

Topicality:

I like a good T round, just keep it organzied. When I debated, I typically preferred competing interps but I've leaned toward reasonability depending on the topic.

Disadvantages:

These were my favorite off-case argument. I'd prefer to hear DA's with a specific link, but it's not the end of the world if you use a generic link. I love politics disads, but don't run it if you haven't cut new evidence.

Counterplans:

I often ran CP's when I debated. I do default to Condo as the status of a CP.

Kritiks:

I have a very limited experience with kritiks. If you run a K, you will have to walk me through it. If I have to vote on a K at the end of the round, I'm basically making the decison based on my gut-instinct.(P.S. I was an accounting major in college in case that influences the K)

Framing/Impacts:

On the impact/framing debate, I default probability > magnitude, but I'm open to the debate.

Cross-X:

Be polite. I don't have a preference between open or closed, I'll leave that up to you all. If one team wants open and the other wants closed, I would defer to closed. If it's open Cross-X, the speaker should answer most questions instead of getting bailed out by their partner.

Speaking/Speed:

I never sped when I debated and I can't flow it - if you chose to speed then don't be upset when I misunderstand your arguments.

Be respectful to everyone in the room, otherwise I have no problem voting against you

Adaption - Teams------------------x--Judge

I'm not too techy, so cross-x is very important for me

On the DA, explain the link clearly and walk me through the chain that leads to the existential (or non-existential) impact. A short o/v on the DA helps out.

CP needs to have a clear benefit that the aff is not able to access through their plan.

Not too familiar with Ks, but am willing to vote on them. I am not the best judge for you if you like running abstract kritikal arguments, but if you explain it clearly, anything's fair game.

I find it better to have a link unique to the case, but general links work.

Clash is very important, this has vanished to a great degree in my time judging

In a galaxy (not so) far, far away, I got assigned to judge you

So just a bit about me, this is my fourth year in debate. So I'm able to flow just about any argument you throw at me.

Some things that I am not a fan of:

Spreading: I have auditory processing issues if you want me to understand you please don't talk as fast as you can but really work on annunciation

Nuke War... no be creative with your impact calc.

Some things I love:

Clash <3

DA's

Use Prep time, please

I can also do time signals but I am not a fan because it takes away from my flowing time

Don't steal prep :(

As debaters, it is imperative that we treat others with the utmost respect. I do not tolerate homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia, ableism, or anything else that is hateful. If you conduct yourself in this way I will call you out and your speaks will be lowered. This however is not something you should be stressed about as I know that we are all here to have a great debate.

Arguments and how I feel:

DA's: Run them but make sure you have an actual link and that your impact is relevant. I'll probably say this a lot but I strongly dislike nuke war arguments UNLESS you can strongly back them up, do NOT run them. I love a good climate impact and DA.

CP's: Again Run them. make sure it's competitive and you have an impact. Again no nuke war. I will say CP's are not my favorite but if you feel strongly about them, go ahead and impress me.

K's: I know it can feel super important to rush and run K's but if you do not know how to run them please don't run them. You will lose. If you do know how to run them please impress me.

Case: Please have case!! This is what creates clash which is something I will evaluate you on.

T: Topicality is fine, just make sure it is backed up. Don't run topicality to run topicality. It's not my favorite argument but I tolerate it. It can definitely be frustrating when an aff case is very vague or outside of the res.

Theory: I don't mind theory however I don't think that there are many circumstances where it will need to be run. If the time comes for theory to be run make sure it is well thought out.

What I evaluate on:

Clash, Style, understanding of the arguments, speech, how well arguments were explained, and the overall flow of the debate.

If you have any questions about me or my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask.

You can always email me with questions at: springer.grace25@gmail.com

May the force be with you, and good luck.

OEHS ‘24, USC ’28

mtroup1221@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you want! Just as long as you’re respectful and kind I’m down for anything.

Before or after the round if y’all have questions please ask(or just email me lmao)!

tech >> truth unless there is any acts of violence in the round

Clarity >> Speed but if you can do both even better

——————————————

Top Level

I have experience and background on mostly critical lit bases. In high school I mainly ran antiblackness args with a focus on black feminism. My personal belief of debate is framed around analysis with strong warrants. Everything should be intentional and utilized. That being said every debate should clear judge instruction on you all want the debate should be viewed. The best nr’s are ones that basically sign my ballot for me. Regardless debate how you want and I’ll do my best to evaluate it!

——————————————

I have the most experience with Policy v. K and K v. K that being said as long as your speeches are clean and flow able a policy throw down is fine.

(William) Grayson Weber

He/Him/His

will.webersmwdebate@gmail.com---Email preferred

Don't shake my hand, please.

My debate philosophy has been shaped a lot by Alex McCarthy, Sophie Leonard, and Henry Walawender

General Thoughts

Please be respectful---pronouns, speed accommodations, don't clip, etc. don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc

Accessibility IS GOOD. Not sending analytics is bad practice. It won't lose you the round but I'd prefer you would.

Tech>>>Truth

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. Stop evading clash.

I'm good for whatever speed, but be clear---I'll clear people

Run whatever---debate is supposed to be fun, don't let me constrain you from running what you want---I will adapt :)

Death good is cringe and I will not have fun in that debate, but I will listen.

No AFF offense in the 2AR means I vote NEG on presumption---Please don't make me do that

Tell me how to vote---2NR/2AR judge instruction is the best way to get my ballot, I need to know what a post-ballot AFF/NEG looks like. If you win x argument, why does it matter? You might win that argument in the round, but implications for why it matters are key.

DAs - I'll vote on whatever

If you can explain 'perm do the DA' in a way that makes sense I could vote on it.

CPs - I'll vote on whatever

Perms are just a test of competition.

All counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

I am sympathetic to AFFs when it comes to CP competition. I think the NEG has gotten too comfortable reading things that rely on artificial competition.

T - I'll vote on whatever

I default to competing interpretations.

I don't think reverse-voting issues are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

Theory - I'll vote on whatever

I think most theory doesn't arise to the level of rejecting a team (Besides condo this is true). YET, If it's conceded... it's conceded.

Kritiks - I'll vote on whatever theory you want to read

I have been called a k hack (I lowkey hate this term but wtv)

Please have a clear 2NR link.

I'm familiar with and read Security, Capitalism/Neoliberalism, Empire, Orientalism, and Postmodern theory.

I understand and am decently familiar with lit I don't read in rounds---i.e. Anti-Blackness, Queer Theory, Psycho.

No matter what, read what you want---this is just an idea of where my footing stands.

FRAMEWORK IS IMPORTANT---FW and alt give more win conditions, don't limit yourself (Please pick one for the 2NR)

I think AFF teams should leverage U.S. hegemony decline turns or O/Ws more.

Kritikal AFFs - I'll vote on whatever

I don't have too much experience in KvK or KAFFs

I think of fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2AR.

Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solving fairness while only linking to the AFF offense half the time.

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

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