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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi my name is Atlas Bell, and I’ll be your novice debate judge.

About me:

I use they/them pronouns

if you are upset or have questions about my ballot, decisions, or my paradigm PLEASE email me at atlas.bell.debate@gmail.com

I am a 4th year debater at Lansing high school. i am extremely familiar with speech and debate.

a little bit about my speech and debate record; i was at CFL nationals for Poetry and prose last year and I have been at state for debate every year of my career.

i have very little tolerance for logical fallacies and even less tolerance for verbal abuse. Be kind to your opponents and have respect for your judge. we are all here to learn and have fun so don't ruin it by getting way to heated over something trivial.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Significantly Strengthen Its Protection Of Domestic Intellectual Property Rights In Copyright, Patents, And Trademarks.

Stock:

• it think there is something quite charming about doing stock correctly.
• the five stock issues are Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. If either team drops any of these they lose on the flow, IMO.

counterplans:

• counter-plans can be good, I'm waiting for them to be great. i HATE conditionality, go for dispositionality. its WAYY better.
• kicking the counter-plan just because makes me upset and sad.
• "Dispositional-status of a counterplan that would allow the negative to only kick the counterplan if the affirmative team has made defense arguments only (including but not limited to a permutation, solvency deficits, or theory arguments)." - NSDA definition of a dispositional counterplan

Disads:

• for a disad, you must have uniqueness, a link, and an impact. without any of these parts i will not consider the DA in my decision.

Kritiks:

• i love a good Kritik or non-linear disad, but it has to be done RIGHT.

• explain how the alt solves, without alt extension and a proper link chain i will not weigh the K.

Congressional Debate--I expect your speeches to address the major issues addressed by the legislation or the concerns raised by the assumed passage of the legislation. I look for speeches that are continuing to advance the debate, not just re-hash points already brought up by previous speakers. Please follow parliamentary procedure. It really is not that hard.

POs should keep the chamber moving efficiently and professionally. Maximizing speech time and cross-x time plays a huge role in my evaluation of a presiding officer. I also expect much consistency from a PO in rulings and recognition of speakers.

Lastly, have fun. This is a fun event. Use humor where appropriate. Enjoy your time in these chambers.

Policy Debate--I'm that judge you wish you did not get. I am old school and I don't like speed.

Four year debate at Olathe North. Four year national qualifier in World Schools & Congress.

Current BP Debater at KU.

Email chain and questions should be given to alex.t.brake@gmail.com

Overview:

Debate should be educational and fun. This is a place for students to share and communicate ideas that should be received and challenged respectfully. Evidence-based argumentation and critical thinking will always trump style in terms of importance.

A good debate follows a narrative that is easy to follow and addresses many subpoints important to the overall debate. You can't regurgitate information onto me and expect me to analyze it as a counterargument. Display to me you understand the arguments you're making and try to change the narrative of the debate.

Clash:

Clash is important. Debates only function with effective clash and analysis. Display a deep understanding of the opponent's case and their evidence in the debate, directly address their arguments, display weaknesses in the opponent's case, and utilize evidence to disprove the thesis of the opponent's narrative.

Aff:

K affs are fine, generally not the most knowledgeable so you're gonna have to baby me through the theory behind why I should even consider voting for you if you want to win the round. If your K acts as a prior question to T USFG you're gonna have to really convince me why, I'm willing to vote on it but you have to tell me why your issue is more important than a topical debate.

Neg:

Same philosophy as K affs, don't assume I know the lit, but willing to learn if it's explained well. I've gotten better with it the more time I spend at KU but I'd still like a rundown not only to make sure I understand but also for the opposing team, just assuming they know it makes the debate not very fun if they don't.

Case args are underutilized and actually go insane, please run them if you have them. Case debate is very strong and with the econ topic there is a lot to be said about each of the cases.

General Conclusion:

Be respectful, avoid ad hominem attacks, be professional, and try your best to create a good environment for debate and education. Try to manage your time well and allocate time to things that matter. I will give you lots of feedback and will make my decision based on the quality of your arguments, meaningful clash, understanding of the material, and good analysis of the evidence.

Have fun, be nice, at the end of the day this paradigm only matters as much as you make it matter, run what you want to have fun with. If you have any questions don't hesitate to 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.

Experience: I was a varsity policy debater in high school and judge occasionally. I have seen several rounds on this topic and I do have a lot of background knowledge.

Speed: I can handle speed but prefer that instead of getting as much info out as possible, you strategically choose good arguments and evidence. I feel a slower pace (not necessarily slow enough to be conversational but slower than spreading) allows for more demonstration of communication and speaking skills.

Number of arguments: Do as many as you want, but I don't want to see debaters throwing out a bunch of arguments just to see what sticks and what arguments the other team drops. I don't feel this choice demonstrates critical thinking or strategic skill. I'd rather see debaters strategically choose strong arguments that support their position and stick with them.

Types of arguments: I will vote on topicality but your standards and voters better justify spending time on the issue.

Counterplans are acceptable.

Theory and kritiks can all be acceptable depending on how they are run and what theories or kritiks you choose to run*. If/when you run a K you need to make the links clear, articulate the alt, and tell me why you need the ballot to achieve the alt. Why the ballot is critical to the alt is very important to me. However, I am generally opposed to K affs. Run these at your own risk.

*I will not vote on disclosure theory.

General Note: I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism other discrimination or intolerance. Debate is an activity that teaches real-world skills and each round is a chance to learn not to perpetuate harmful ideas.

I was not in Debate & Forensics in High School.

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

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

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

(I prefer speech drop)

Overview:

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

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

Clash:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Most importantly: HAVE FUN! Be confident!

You can ask me questions if you need to :)

Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.

Policy:

Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...

Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.

Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)

Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.

Forensics:

I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress

What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.

Overall:

The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

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.

yoo welcome to my paradigm

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

BASICS

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

CPs

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

THEORY

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

honestly im down for any arguments do what u want

I am a community judge. Did 4N6 in Highschool but nothing past that. Went to nationals with my DUO in 2012.

For Policy:

I do not have many opinions when it comes to what you can and can not do but if you are going to run Topicality it better be freaking good. I have listened to way too many debates where weak T takes over.

Also, Ks are not my favorite arguments but it can be used if you see fit.

If you are going to spread try to enunciate so I can get at least a little bit of what you say. Bad spreading just makes me irritated and more likely to vote against you.

For speech:

I did speech longer than I did debate, and it is my preferred tournament to judge. Please keep a professional attitude when in the room whether it is prelims or after breaks and be respectful to all those competing.

The biggest note I have for speech tournmanets is please understand that while trigger warnings can be redundant they are necessary. I do not want to walk in blind and listen to a really triggering speech without warning.

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.

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.

BIO

Litigation Attorney. Former speech kid and theatre artist. Current assistant debate, mock trial, and speech coach at SME.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Policymaker with a high emphasis on speaking skills.

Be respectful in the round. Don’t ever tell me that an opponent has no idea what they are talking about--that’s not professional nor appropriate. They do know what they are talking about and so do you.

Better arguments over many arguments. Don’t spread.

Tell me WHY this stuff is important in your own words—don’t just read the cards. Your job is to advocate, be an advocate for why your plan resolves or the other teams does not.

Similarly, I only use speech drop to help flow the round—I won’t read your cards. This is a speech activity so you need to tell me what the cards say.

I view everything that is said as a “record” of the debate. If you say it, it is “coming into evidence” and therefore part of my analysis and judgment. This includes CX. (See comment above about me not reading your cards.)

Common sense solutions to real issues prevail over esoteric rhetoric.

SPEECH GUIDE (INCLUDING CXD)

“Be brief, be pointed; let your matter stand
Lucid in order, solid, and at hand;
Spend not your words on trifles, but condense;
Strike with the mass of thought, not drops of sense;
Press to the close with vigor, once begun,
And leave, (how hard the task!) leave off, when done

Keep, then, this great precept ever near;
Short be your speech, your matter strong and clear;
Earnest your matter, warm and rich your style,
Severe in taste, yet full of grace the while,
So may you reach the loftiest heights of fame;
And leave, when life is past, a deathless name.”

- Joseph Story, Associate Justice Supreme Court of the United States

Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv

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

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

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

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.