Hello my name is Nabaa I am a third year debater and excited to hear your perspectives. I want you to run what you know and respond to the other team as best as possible. One thing I will say is that Respecting each other is at utmost importance despite technically being each others opponents. So be nice please.

GENERAL

Topicality is a good argument if the debater can provide reasons as to why the opponent is truly not within the bound lines of the topic. However if it is a general topicality and is not very strong then please note that it may not be a round winner.

Advantages: Running an advantage you must prove to me as to why your plan is beneficial and why your impact is important.

Disadvantage: Running a disadvantage you must prove why this plan causes this effect and why the impact outweighs in comparison to the plan.

The point of this debate is to prove why you as a competitor are better than the other opponents this means that make sure you are not dropping arguments and signify what argument goes where. I will be flowing so please be mindful of this.

also please follow the novice packet

Debate experience: I debated for 1 year in high school, and currently teaching our middle school debate elective

Judging experience this season: Andover High School Debate Tournament, Wichita Southeast Debate Invitational, Nickerson Cowbell Classic, KSHSAA 321A 4 Speaker Debate Regional @ Collegiate

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates? Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate? Stock issues emphasis, Policy maker emphasis

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer? No preference regarding speed.

Counterplans are... Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Topicality is... Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue

Hello, I'm Kayla. I've done Speech and Debate for what I would consider a "hot" minute. I've competed and coached at every level, and I love some Policy Debate.

I'll be honest, I am terrible at writing paradigms. However, I am good at Taylor Swift so here is my likes/dislikes in a Policy Debate round as told by Taylor Swift Songs.

If this is confusing, then please just ask me questions before the round starts. I am much better at talking about my paradigm, than putting it into words.

Also just note, I was not a K Person... However, I have coached KritiKal Arguments before... but, this does not mean I know all the in's and out's of your K... unless it's a simple version of Cap.

Please add me to the email chain: kaylab222@gmail.com

Enjoy,

DA's

Politic DA’s - Lover

Topic DA’s - Stay Beautiful

Specific DA Links - I Wish You Would (Taylor’s Version)

CP's

CP’s with 5+ Planks - Breathe (feat. Colbie Caillat) (Taylor’s Version)

Condo vs. Equal to or Less than 5 Conditional Positions - You Need to Calm Down

Dispositionality - I Forgot That You Existed

K's

Cap/Race/Gender Based K’s - Gorgeous

Nietzche/Baudrillard/Etc. K’s - Tolerate It

Clear Explanation of the Alt in the Context of the Round - Timeless (Taylor’s Version) (From the Vault)

Judge Kick - You’re On Your Own, Kid

Theory/T

Topicality - Love Story (Taylor’s Version)

Fairness as an Internal Link, instead of a Voter (T) - Safe & Sound (Taylor's Version)

TVA’s - happiness

Theory - Tell me Why (Taylor’s Version)

Misc/Niche Things I Care/Don't Care About

Speed - Mr. Perfectly Fine (Taylor’s Version)

Not Slowing Down After I Clear You Once - this is me trying

Not Slowing Down After I Clear You Twice - it’s time to go

Taking 2+ Minutes to Send the Doc - Is it Over Now? (Taylor’s Version)

Interrupting People during CX/Being Hyper Aggressive in Round: The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived

Doing Big Picture Analysis in the 2NR/2AR: loml

Sending Evidence in PDF Format, instead of Word - - i hate it here

Mentioning Taylor Swift during the Round: The Best Day (Taylor’s Version)

If you made it this far, thank you for reading my paradigm :)

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

I have no preferences on arguments run as long as you can articulate your point.

I will count you off if you are rude to your teammate and/or the opposing team.

I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 7 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, for 3 years. I also debated in high school.

Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.

Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.

Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

To start while I am completely open judge with only small prefrences towards certain arguements, if you are disrespectful towards me or your opponent you will lose. In saying that I can tell if the opponent is taking offense or not and in the case you are jokingly disrespectul towards eachother I simply ask you not to point it towards me.

Now for my actual preferences. I am a strong believer in the fact that debate should be fun. The same thing round after round can get boring so feel free to use some outlandish arguements.

AFF- As you should know, the aff has the burden of proof. You must be adventagously solving a problem effectively to win. While I hate to see dropped arguements, if you drop an arguement and the negative does not catch it I will let you continue to argue it.

DA's- DA's may be the most straightforward way to attack an arguements. When arguing a DA the link is important and if the link isn't actually linking to the plan I will not flow it

CP's- I love judging CP's. Make sure to run arguements that don't also attack your cp

T- T is by far my favorite negative arguement. Argue it well and please do not argue about words like "the' or "of"

K- While I will vote on them if argued well, K's can be boring and often don't have great links to the plan. If you don't link well then you probably shouldn't run it

Theory- Theory is super fun and I personally argue it alot in my rounds. Feel free to throw out some crazy theory arguments

I am a judge that listens to all arguments and if you explain them well enough and correctly, I'm willing to vote on any argument. One thing that will get you the 3 or 4 in my round is disrespect. Debating is educational and there's no reason to be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or the judge. I love debaters that use all the time they have to thoroughly explain arguments.

T - I only vote on logical arguments. If you hit the opponent with a t over "the" or "its" I'm probably not going to vote for you. I only vote on T if the neg argues it correctly. Hit all points, go through every part of T and explain why you win on all points.

DAs - I'm always willing to vote for a DA as long as all parts of the DA are standing by the end of the round, if you drop a part of your DA, and the AFF sufficiently answers it, I will stop flowing the DA.

CPs - I'm willing to hear and vote for any CPs as long as they solve what the aff claims to. My biggest pet peeve with counterplans is a neg that won't answer a perm. If you're permed and don't convince me why only your plan solves, I'm flowing the CP affirmative.

Ks - I love Kritiks and believe when done right they're amazing, however, kritiks are my least favorite argument just because they're hard to run correctly. Don't assume I understand what your kritik is saying just by you reading the cards. Kritiks are very complex arguments that benefit from more explanation.

Theory - I love a little theory here and there, but as a debater myself, I prefer hearing arguments regarding why the case itself won't work, not how the other team breaks the rules of debate. I will vote on theory, but I try not to.

Basic Intro: Debated and did forensics for 4 years at Andover HS, have gone to Nationals in extemporaneous speaking and student congress. Currently WSU student in biochemistry.

Debate:

I have arguments that I like and don't like, but I want you to run what you do well. Try to convince me that you have won and deserve to win, but don't be rude in any case I will knock speaker points and if extreme enough lose rounds, but shouldn't be much of an issue. I view policy debate as, well, a debate of policy. I believe it is the affirmative's goal to present an effective measure of public policy within the topic, and the negative's goal to present why the status quo or a viable alternative is a better policy than the opposing team.

How I Judge: I flow, and dropped arguments could cost you. Make sure you keep up with the opposing team and their arguments, everything should get an answer. Neg make sure your arguments adequately connect to the affirmative cases, not the biggest fan of generic links but I'll allow it if you argue well. Topicality is fine with me, I like Counter Plans

Speaker Points: I don't really have a set idea or theory in place for Speaker Points, but it's mostly predicated on your technical efficiency, style and presentation. Being unnecessarily rude, offensive will cost you speaker points.

Forensics:

I generally do not have much theory for my ranking across events. For events such as Exempt and Congress, I value quality of information, arguments, and speaking style. For other oratory events, I generally value the quality of the topic choice, information, flow, and clarity, and I will rank on who did the best in the aggregate of these factors. As stated above for debate, being unnecessarily rude or offensive will cost you points and rank.

Noah Gray

I'm okay with shaking hands. If using email chain, add : Noah.Gray7.25.06@gmail.com

Policymaker judge, but proving out of round abuse is funny and hilarious and will probably boost your speaks, but I won't grant any points on my RFD unless it's overkill. Also bonus points if you give in depth substantial debate explaining why your opponents are wrong and you are right and why their cards are bad and yours are good and the whole nine yards. Having entertaining cross-ex's and speeches, especially constructives, are going to boost your speaks just FYI.

Inherency - Be inherent. Either explain why your warrants in their cards does not apply to your case, why your case stands out from the squo, or how the squo method is currently failing. Date debate is cringe unless you explain why your card being more recent in context matters, but I hope for an aff to be ran you'll have done some research like, oh I don't know, being inherent. I give less weight to inherency args for novices due to the constriction of the novice packet, but don't fumble the bag aff.

Solvency - Yes, advantages do stem from solvency. I would like to see solvency, as well as inherency and all other stock issues, extended throughout the round. Doesn't mean you'll win them, it just means you won't lose on them at the beginning of the debate. Prove why the plan itself or an aspect of the plan wouldn't solve, or by solving you are doing something worse. Solvency is a pretty nifty debate, but don't run thirty eight solvency args and expect your opponents to respond to all. The more shallow solvency args, the more leeway I give to the aff to answer them.

Theory - Lol, go for it. Hilarious, but again a large amount of substantial burdens have to be met for it to factor into my RFD.

DA's/CP - BEST DEBATE STYLE, but neg has a lot of burdens to fill, i.e. CP is better than the aff, DA doesn't link to the CP, yadayada. My favorite debate is a clash on case especially with a little CP/DA mixed in, just make sure you understand it. I will def vote on you if you meet the threshold, but it's a steep hill to climb on if you're trying to prove the negative CP is more beneficial, you must meet all, or at least a sufficiently high, amount of burdens. Also, abusive CP's are funny and give me a chuckle and I will vote on them, but if the aff pulls out the right arguments it'll work out for the aff.

K's - Ew. But in all seriousness, K's are fine to run, I understand the literature of most K's, but if you see me do the whole head turning thing, might want to take that as a hint that I'm A) paying attention and B) confused. Novices, make sure you understand your K's or whatever arg your running.

T's - Definition debates are hilarious and would love to see that, but it probably won't influence my ballot. What will though, are standards and limits debate. Voters really won't, T is a voter either way because it's a stock issue. A voters debate will take a lot of work to go towards the aff. Standards and Limits are fun, show why the aff is good or bad for education and fairness. Cool stuff like that and running a good T arg in REBUTTALS will def help your speaks.

Btw be good people first and good debaters second!!!

haha ????

:)

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

I am a High School assistant debate coach, as well as a High School science teacher. My background in debate is that debated a few years in High School myself, so please do not waste your time with explaining the rules of debate to myself or your opponents. I believe that all topics are debatable, but ensure that you explain the relevance of your evidence and the connection to the argument. Although you may bring attention to topicality issues, this should not be the center of your argument. I favor sound arguments backed up with multiple sources of scientific evidence, so ensure that you provide clear tags / authors. I do not have a preference for style choices, I am open to all styles of debate. Presenting a thorough case is important, so I need to be able to understand you. Avoid extreme speed reading and burrowing your face into your computer screen. Although this is a competition, be careful with your word choice and "attacks" on your opponents. I do not favor taunting or personal attacks. Stick to the case and the debate topics.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 2 years running.

Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.

6 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.

https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/elliott/2012/Student_Organizations/Debate_home.php

Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.

Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.

email: Kaydperd@gmail.com

Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

Hey everyone, feel free to ask questions before the round if anything is not clear in my paradigm. Additionally, if you find some of this information vague or confusing reading Tim Ellis's paradigm or Sean Duff's will give you plenty of insight into how I view debate.

Experience: I debated for 3 years at Washburn Rural High School. I'm the prototypical WARU debater in that I only ran policy affs and typically only read straight forward Kritiks when competing. I am currently a senior at Wichita State University studying Economics and History.

Technology/Speed: I'm fine with any speed typically, if you aren't clear I'll clear you once.

Preferences: The strategies most likely to win my ballot are policy oriented. Ideally, my favorite types of debates are relatively straight forward fast debates with lots of warranted analysis. On the affirmative, I'm a big fan of well put together and defensible aff's. However, I enjoy straight turning DA's and kicking the aff, if you have the chance take it. I think the most compelling neg strategy in debate is usually DA and case or DA and CP. That being said obviously theory/kritiks are viable ways to win but they are typically less enjoyable unless they include intelligient in round debate and not just blocks.

Framework: I think fairness is extremely important in debate. Plan-less affirmatives are more compelling to me if they are in the direction of topic and allow for substantial neg ground. Aff should focus on their impacts and how they engage with education in the round and why that outweighs fairness or why fairness doesn't matter. Case debate even without specific evidence is helpful in these rounds when it comes to understanding the desirability of the aff. I would say plan-less aff vs kritik rounds are likely be a jumbled mess and confuse me unless it is contextualized well and is fairly straight forward.

Topicality/Theory: Typically, I believe T is a question of competing interpretations. When evaluating interpretations I tend to lean towards models of debate that provide fairly equitable neg and aff ground. Also, when going for a terminal impact on T, I think fairness tends to be the most persuasive IF there is further explanation about why fairness matters in regards to education. On most theory arguments I default to reject the arg not the team but it is possible to win my ballot on conditionality. Spec debates are exceptionally lame. Reasonability is not a real argument.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with most Kritik's, however I am not as familiar with what I'll call identity Kritik's. This does not mean you should never go for one of these arguments. Kritik literature often fascinates me but I don't think its very often both sides are able to have a meaningful debate on it. If you are able to intelligently discuss the merits of the Kritik beyond the tag lines I will be much more receptive. I think alts are under utilized in many kritik debates and I tend to enjoy the debate more if the neg goes for the alt instead of just framework and a link. However, if you do go for the alt its important I get an explanation how the alt resolves at least portions of the aff and also the mechanisms of how the alt functions. Contextualized specific links are extremely important to me in this style of debate. Link of omission=no link

DA/CP/Case: This is the style of debate I prefer, the rebuttals should clearly outline the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the aff. If no impact analysis is done I will not be happy. Never underestimate the value of case arguments, going for solvency or focusing on internal links of the aff is more persuasive than generic impact defense. Counter plans are an essential aspect of debate that challenge the desirability of the aff. Conditions counter plans are kind of up in the air I can be persuaded either way. Consult counter plans I think are almost always cheating, you definitely need to focus on how the CP textually and/or functionally competes if you're going for this kind of CP. Delay CP's are cheating and if that fact is identified by the other team I will not vote on it. Please keep in mind there are multiple parts of a DA required to win a round. Without uniqueness, link, internal link, and an impact I cannot vote on your DA even if it is dropped most likely.

***My suggestion for you is to do what you are good at or what is fun. Too often in rebuttals negative teams will go for what the aff has done the worst on instead of what the neg has done the best on. This is a mistake. Keep in mind you are playing to win, not playing to watch the other team lose.***

Lastly, be nice and have fun. If you have more experience than the team across from you trust me I'll know, there is no need to be mean and make the round less enjoyable for everyone. I don't want to hear you talking during your opponents speeches. Probably the most annoying thing for me to see in debate are when debaters are overly emotional or condescending with body language during opponents speeches.

Asst. Debate coach 6 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 6 years. Theatre Teacher

The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.

Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:

Solvency

Topicality

Inherency

I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.

To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.

I'm Ashlee Seaton and I am a fourth year debater at Andover. I've qualified to the NSDA tournament in policy and competed in outrounds.

The most important thing in any debate is framework. I am a policy maker judge; you need to tell me why I should vote for you.

I will be flowing, so keep your arguments and your flows in order and give a roadmap. Please don’t jump back and forth and all around on your flows during your speech. Signposting is key.

T - I will vote on topicality as long as it is an argument with all four components. Your topicality must include a definition, a violation, standards, and voters issues. If you are responding to topicality, you must respond completely. I will not be voting on topicality if it is not run correctly.

DA - I’m fine with generic disadvantages, though I would prefer case specific. Impact them out all the way. Do an impact calc.

CP - I will listen to counterplans. Have solvency with them and be sure to explain the net benefit. You must win on the perm and prove your cp is competitive and the better option in order to win the debate on the cp. Open to whatever status you please, and I will listen to theory.

K - I have no issue with a k. Be sure to explain it well.

A few other things to note:

Moderate speed is alright, but you need to be clear.

Good clash is always appreciated

Stay clear and organized

Debaters are responsible for keeping their own time.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Respect your opponents. Do not be rude or disrespectful especially during a debate. It’s fine if you need to cut someone off during cx in the interest of time, but I expect a civil debate.

Debate at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).

I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)

If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.

My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

Policy arguments are fine by me.

Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.

Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.

Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.

With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments

Don't take the fun out of debate. Talk in a manner that you can be understood, I shouldn't have to rely on files to follow along. I don't tolerate hate whatsoever.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.