he/him/his---4th year varsity debater at waru, tech>truth

go for whatever you want i have done the vast majority of debating styles---put me on the email chain---email: bathcar@usd437.net

given that this is for novices, i don't feel as if my personal takes on arguments are that necessary

Hello! My name is Allie Ellsworth (she/her), and if you are reading this, I am probably going to be judging you in a debate round. I am currently a fourth year debater at Olathe Northwest and I have judged for several tournaments in the past years. Here are a few of my judging preferences:

Talking speed: Do. Not. Talk. Monotone. Give me some inflection. Use the tone of your voice to show me what parts of your speech I should care about. For novices, I don't think spreading is going to be a problem. But generally, talk at a medium/fast speed.

CX: Be nice during CX!! Do not get aggressive, do not be rude to your opponent. Please let each other finish, or be polite about moving on to the next questions. You don't have to be mean to prove your point!

I'm going to be judging you on your speaking as well as the arguments being made. I will most likely join your speechdrop/email chain to look at your speech structure as well.

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)

If you plan on using an E-mail chain please include the following email: jack.turec@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Jonathan Turec and I use They/Them pronouns. I am a 3rd-year debater at Olathe Northwest High School. I have competed in the Novice, JV, and Open divisions. I have seen most policy arguments and can follow most major CPs, K's, and DAs but you have to make sure they make sense in the scope of the debate.

Novice: The things I want to see in a novice debate are teams who are invested in and understand the debate and don't just mindlessly read off your documents. I need to be able to understand what you are saying in your speeches so please speak up and annunciate. I do factor in your behavior in round as well as the arguments you present. If you act rudely towards your opponent or your partner you will be much more likely to lose that round, so please be cordial. Furthermore, any racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic arguments or behavior presented will result in the debater getting the bottom speaker position and very likely result in that team losing the round.

Plan: You need to have clear and easy-to-understand plantexts to let me follow the debate and allow a fair debate for the Neg. I would prefer not to have an entire debate just on the wording of the plan as that will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. If you fail to read your plan in the 1AC I have nothing to judge the Aff case off of and will award the round to the Neg.

CX: During cross-examination, I want both the questioner and recipient to face me to allow me to hear and understand both sides of CX better, you should remain polite and cordial in your CX as well as not asking hateful or derogatory questions if it is your time for questioning. While I am fine with open CX I would prefer that you allow those who are meant to be speaking to have the majority of time in the CX.

Topicality: While I enjoy T arguments, you need to provide good reasoning for your T and make sure it makes sense. If you decide to run topicality on a case that is very clearly topical the affirmative team will have the upper hand in the debate. Overall I like T debate but make sure your T isn't too out there.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan you need to show both how the affirmative team is wrong in enacting their plan and how your plan solves the affirmative team's impacts/advantages better. I usually enjoy counter-plan debates and will take the CP into heavy consideration when deciding the round. When it comes to perms you need to explain to me why you are perming and how perming solves the CP's issues. It would help if you also showed how perming is possible with both the Aff Plan and Neg CP.

K: It is essential that if you decide to run a K you understand the arguments and reasoning in the kritik, if on the Neg you run a Cap K or some other K and don't understand the basic reasoning and arguments of it then the Aff will get the upper hand in the round. Furthermore, you need to explicitly show how your K links to the Aff case, if you don't then it won't be considered in my RFD.

Overall the debate round will hopefully go smoothly. There should be no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try to give as much feedback as possible on my ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round so I can explain parts in depth for you.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

Hello, I'm Bennett! I have several years of experience in policy debate, so I've played the game. I consider myself open-minded, and do my best to come to a debate room to judge fairly and listen carefully. I do flow every round, and clash is very important in order to win my ballot. I would like to specify some things however:

File Share: My email is fractured so I would pref SpeechDrop, but if needed add bennettaddink52@gmail.com to the chain.

Topic Knowledge (23-24): Love this topic. I would say I'm pretty knowledgable, but I love learning new things so intrigue me! As this is Economic Policy, the squo is pretty fast-changing so contextual analysis is very important on this topic.

Philosophy- I treat debate as a space for education and the simulation of change. This space creates the future of our nation- producing knowledgable policy-makers, lawyers, activists, scholarly critics, and forward-thinking members of society. As a judge, I seek to make this activity welcoming and accessible. In other words, don't be toxic please! Prioritize being good humans over good debaters, if I feel like its a minor concern with this it won't affect my decision, but I will reflect that in speaker points.

DA's- I need a clear calculus and DA story in order to vote on a DA, if I don't understand the story by the end of the 1NR then its gonna be hard to win in the 2NR.

CP's- I need to be assured the CP adequately avoids the aff impacts in order to vote on it and it needs clear Net Benefits.

Topicality- I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless necessary. I default to competing interpretations but if you don't give me clear voters by the 2nr I typically won't vote on it.

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues. A few things here: I default to the policymaker framework, so in order to vote for a K I need a clear framework to do so. I have ran with Cap, SettCol, Empire, Neolib, and Security K's in the past, but am familiar with Identity K's (Race, Fem, Queerness, etc.).

Speed- I can typically tolerate high speed, but do not encourage it. As long as you are persuasive and logical. I will verbally say "clear" if it is too fast.

Complete disclaimer, I type kinda loud so if it gets unbearable let me know you won't hurt my feelings :)

Let me know if you need any kind of accommodations, i.e. dimmed lights, sit while speaking, etc. If there is a medical thing (like a sugar spike/drop) please let me know. Don't use your prep to resolve an issue such as that.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss of my ballot and a referral to tournament staff. I trust debaters to not welcome this into this sacred space of education, so I hope not to see any problems of this kind.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round. Have fun and good luck!

PS: If you manage to make me laugh then I'll give you +1 speaker points. Love humor in debate!!!!

Any questions about feedback can be directed to bennettaddink52@gmail.com or 24benadd@kckps.org

Girl just debate lol

Email - bradenbazzel@gmail.com

I have debated for 2 years at the varsity level, and I have competed in forensics for 3 years at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, so I have experience with many different kinds of cases and arguments.

Argument-wise, I don't have any preference on what is run in the round. However, arguments should be run logically (hopefully this is obvious). For example, running topicality on a topical case just to add another argument will not contribute any value to the round. Basically, only run an argument if you believe it to be true! As long as you have clear and logical uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. then you'll be great! On the other side of it, make sure you respond back to your opponent's arguments. I will be flowing, so I can tell if you're missing things. As for speaking, I am fine with any speed as long as you are somewhat understandable. Other than that, you should fill the room and be confident! The way you speak impacts how your arguments come across, so I would rather you be confident and wrong than sound unsure. Overall the key is to respond to arguments the best you can, be confident in yourself, and be respectful!

I expect evidence to be shared amongst both teams as well as myself. Otherwise, the round can get a bit confusing!! Whether it is a SpeechDrop or an email chain, I think it's very important to have all the evidence from a round available to reference or review. My email is at the top if you are going to include me on a chain. Just let me know at the beginning of the round how you will be sharing evidence!

I believe debate is purely for educational benefit, so be nice, be fair, and be respectful. Any disrespect to anyone in the round is not tolerated and will impact my voting decision, as well as speaker points.

Voting: I take a policymaker approach to judging, and will vote on realistic impacts proven through timeframe, magnitude, etc. as well as proper T args.

Lastly, I am not super familiar with this year's topic so any explanation of acronyms or specific details relevant may be helpful!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts! :)

Hello! My name is Eve Benditt (she/her) and I am a fourth year debater at SME!

If you want more feedback than what I wrote down feel free to email me post-round!

General:

• If you are at all discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will immediately sign and submit my ballot for the other team.
• Giving the other team a paper copy of your 1AC if you're not a paper debater is annoying and you shouldn't do it.
• If I was you I probably wouldn't read a K in front of me. This is not to say that I don't have a basic understanding of a K, but I am not a K debater nor am I read on whatever rando lit you're giving me...

• I’d rather you underestimate what I know and over-explain your args. If I can’t explain your argument by the end of the round I probably won’t weigh it in my decision.

• I’m okay with some speed as long as you’re clear and I can understand what you’re saying

• Truth>tech

• DO NOT CLIP CARDS. You MUST make it clear that you are cutting a card and if the opposing team asks where you cut it please be able to answer.

• DA need links - I prefer case specific but if it’s a niche aff I understand this might not always be possible. If you're making your links verbally/doing it analytically just make sure it makes sense.

• Disclosure is good and you should do it.

• I will not vote on anything that happened outside of the round.

• Please don’t send over a 100+ page file in the speechdrop.

• Rebuttals are SO important and are where good speakers shine. Judge instruction is really important and I vote on it 90% of the time.

• I don’t like seeing you read off your computer in rebuttals. If you use it to write notes down on, thats fine, but please make eye contact with me it’s SO MUCH more persuasive.

• I am very expressive. Use this to your advantage.

• I will know you read my paradigm when you walk into the room and tell me happy birthday (it is not my birthday but reading paradigms is really important and I like when teams can prove to me that they did).

• CP’s don’t need to solve the impact of the aff, but they must be more beneficial than the alt for me to vote on them.

• I hate the arguments on preferring evidence for relevancy when there’s a tiny difference (aka less than 5-10 years) and I will never vote on it. Unless there was some major event that would have significantly changed a lot about your ev (like an econ DA from pre-2020), please don't make this argument.

• Love a good theory debate. The novice packet gives you your evidence – what analytical arguments can you make? How can you use those to your advantage? The caveat is that if you're bringing something up, I expect you to extend it through the round and be able to defend/define it. Don't take args from your advanced kids without understanding them!

PLEASE don't:

• Run a K if you don't know the literature or understand the alt

• Take prep before CX

• Take prep in the middle of the neg block

• Ask stupid CX questions

• Lie

• Run T without all components

• Not use all your speech time

Things I like:

• Using CX to set up arguments for the next speech/speeches

• Using all your prep

• T debates (I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me a different way to vote and why)

Things that will get you extra speaker points: **don’t feel pressured to work these in, I just think it’s funny when people can make it work

• Being funny (as long as it’s appropriate)

• References to Grey’s Anatomy

• References to Taylor Swift

Basically, as long as you're both respectful and creating clash, I have no preference on what arguments you run. If you have any more questions please don’t be afraid to ask!

I'm a fourth-year debater and Senior at SME. I've judged a couple of times but I've debated more, so I'm able to follow most arguments made in-round. I don't like Ks at all but I understand how they work, however, I will weigh them less heavily compared to on-case stuff along with normal off-case stuff like disads, counterplans etc.

Hello all, my name is Maddie (she/her). Add me to the email chain: madeline.doyle0628@gmail.com

Shawnee Mission East '24

University of Kansas '28

Feel free to contact me with questions about the round, I am more than happy to give more in-depth feedback.

I debated competitively for 3 years in high school.

You can go fast in front of me, I don't care just make sure you're clear. I will clear you if you are not. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't. Also- if your opponents don't want you to spread, please don't. I want to make the debate space as friendly as possible, and that starts with basic kindness and consideration.

TL;DR:

-I'm very tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I went for cc good a lot my senior year if that tells you anything.

-If you are being strategic and playing the game, you are more likely to win.

-I'd like to see more judge instruction, I don't see this enough. Write my ballot for me.

-I will default to policymaking, if you want different, you have to tell me.

Flow: Off-time roadmaps please, for ALL speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in. Try and keep the flow relatively clean, although I know this can be hard. If you decide to skip around I might be salty, but I won't vote you down for it. Just signpost and let me know what you are responding to.

Args: DO NOT drop a crucial argument, especially if you're aff. I presume neg. I am fine with anything that you run. Be able to answer T. I honestly will vote on anything. I love impact turns I think they are incredibly strategic and most people are really bad at answering them.

CPs: I will vote on any CP. I'm good with competition debates just make sure you give clear warrants. I went for POI a lot in high school so if you cook up a nice competition text I will like you. 2NC CPs are fine, just make sure you can justify it. I will judge-kick the CP if you tell me to.

DAs: These are good. Make sure you extend all parts of the DA. I like turns-case, I think it is something that should be utilized more. Please for the love of god do impact calc.

Topicality: I love T. I think that when done well it serves its purpose. Make sure you are specific with your impacts to T, don't just give me some internal links and say that's an impact, I see this too much. Side note- I think that the topic this year has great T ground for most of the novice affs, so if you haven't considered running it, I would give it a try sometime.

Ks: I am somewhat familiar with the lit bases. It never hurts to explain the thesis of the K and the theory of power tho. Your alt can be something funny, but you have to make it make sense and give it some sort of solvency. I will judge kick the alt if you tell me to. I'm comfortable voting on just FW.

Theory: I think theory debates are fine. Theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I am undecided about condo. I went for it on the aff in high school and responded to it on the neg (I was both a 2A and 2N) and I think it’s a valid argument. Make sure you analyze your theory argument heavily because I want to know that you understand what you are running. I honestly prefer substance debates more, but I will vote on most theory arguments if they are logical.

Neg v K: I prefer fairness as an impact but I will vote for clash. I think that T is a prior question. I am good to have in the back for presumption. I operate on an offense-defense paradigm here.

K v K: This is always a fun debate. Perms are good for aff. Please analyze the cards more here, as I don't think you can over-analyze K cards. Specific links are amaze.

Don't forget to have fun!

Hi! My name's Brynn Emery (she/her). I'm a Junior at SMNW. I debated up to the Varsity level for 2 years and loved it. I'd like to think that I know a decent amount about the activity having been very involved the past few years. I'm not super familiar with this year's topic though, so please keep that in mind. I do well in regards to speed, so talk as fast as you're comfortable. I vote off the flow, so I'd love to see you bring your flow up to speak and reference it for me.

What determines my vote:

1. How debaters conduct themselves - in the words of Harry Styles "Treat People With Kindness"
2. Flow - I take note when things are dropped, but it will impact my decision more heavily if the other team points it out
3. Credentials - many pieces of evidence are biased. point it out!
4. Analytics - of course, evidence matters, but so does the explanation of it. evidence does you no good if you can't explain why the facts mean you're right.

Arguments for the Neg:

Yes, I will absolutely vote on T if you can run it properly (I believe in you). I love myself a good topicality that makes sense. Disads are lovely. I think long link chains are fun if they can logically connect the impact to the uniqueness. CPs are great tools, go for it! Theory... yes, please. I love all things theory if you can connect it to why I should vote.

Aff:

I'll try my best to be completely unbiased and open to whatever plan you propose. (: Tips for aff: please respond to everything. If you don't have cards for it, go analytical!

Cross Ex tips for both:

• questions should lead you into your next speech/arg or be clarifying.
• I don't mind assertive questions whatsoever, just be respectful
• There's a beautiful balance I believe you will find between being assertive and being respectful.

Speaks: Like I said, speed is fine. Please be respectful. Rudeness will earn you a 4. But I know you're all lovely humans so this won't be a problem. Also... if you can throw in a Taylor Swift or Harry Styles lyric there's a chance I'll take that into account in speaks.

Lastly, debate is a safe space. I want you to have fun. You deserve this space to learn and grow as a person, speaker, communicator, and learner. I want you to feel comfortable, respected, and encouraged during this round. If there's anything I should know that will help you with that, please let me know.

I've done policy debates and PFD debates. I'd like to think I'm pretty laid back. I will be flowing so don't lie in your 2AR about arguments. I don't love it when the teams complain (topicality, condo, etc.) but if it's a solid argument I will vote on it. Please find your best argument(s) and go for it in your 2AR/2NR, whoever can convince me the best at the end I will vote for.

USE SPEECHDROP !!!

In my role as a debate judge, my foremost priority is to foster a debate environment characterized by respectful and inclusive discourse. I prohibit any form of hateful speech or offensive language in both evidence and speeches. Debaters are expected to engage in constructive and well-reasoned arguments while treating each other with professionalism and courtesy. Disrespect in any way will not be tolerated. To guide my evaluation, I adhere to the Stock Issues - Legal Model, so I will evaluate debates primarily based on how well debaters address the standard stock issues. To secure a victory, the affirmative team must successfully uphold all of these stock issues throughout the debate. Conversely, for the negative team to win, they only need to demonstrate that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I tend to have a preference for traditional arguments, kritiks, CP, and certain theoretical points must have significant impacts to the debate round for them to be taken into consideration during the debate. I find that CP come off as generic, and without 100% commitment from the NEG team it usually falls through anyways. I will assess the strength of each debater's arguments within these parameters, emphasizing clarity, evidence, and logical coherence. My aim is to ensure a productive, educational, and fair debate experience that upholds the principles of respectful and responsible discourse.

My name is Joseph Higgins, and I've been a debater for close to two years at Olathe Northwest.

I dislike when judges use paradigms to insert themselves into rounds, so I don't have many specific "preferences" on what you all argue. The notion that a judge should have any kind of say over what happens in a round doesn't make sense to me. But seeing as I'm judging novices, there are some things you should be doing.

-You should all be flowing. If you don't, the debate will be a lot less organized and it'll be difficult for me to make a decision.

-PLEASE clearly state which section of the flow you are speaking on. If you don't, then I won't know how to weight your arguments. It's also a good idea to section off the evidence in your speech documents into what part of the debate it references. Coming up to speak with a bunch of unordered cards makes debate really difficult. But keep in mind that I've been there and it's a lot easier for a judge to say "be organized" than for a debater to actually do it. That being said, you should keep the flow as neat and clean as you can.

-Clash is very important to me. Rounds with a lot of clash are better.

-I really like evidence analysis, and as a novice it shows that you are paying attention and thinking hard during the round.

-I like voting on more "procedural" type arguments like topicality or uniqueness. In novice rounds I don't expect theory to come up, but I'll listen to what you have to say if it does. At the end of the day, debate is a game and not a truth-finding activity. I'm more "tech" over "truth."

-One basic idea that I take into the round as a judge is that the aff has to prove that they are a better idea than the status quo. I'm voting neg until the aff convinces me that they are better. In other words, the status quo is innocent until proven guilty.

Happy debating!

Joseph Higgins

he/him

sme '26

tech > truth

ground rules: don't be discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) the second i see you doing this, i give the win to the other team. also, be nice(ish), we're all here spending our saturdays reading random stuff off of a computer.

preferences

speed- as long as it's understandable and i can flow it, its ok. if i can't understand you, i'm going to 'yell' clear, and if you don't slow down, then its a loss on speaks.

args- fine w/ basically anything. default to competing interps on T, reasonability is an uphill battle in 90% of the cases. you need to debate case well if you want my ballot. please go for solvency deficits, turns, etc. argue textual and functional comp. on counterplans. not a fan of perf con. kritikal debates are weird and i like them (if you know what you're talking about).

misc.- don't go, "is everyone ready? judge? opponents? ok, starting in 3, 2, 1". start the speech, and we'll tell you if we aren't ready. phone timers are fine. don't read more than 5 off. its annoying, and as a 2a, i despise it. one off and case debating can win you a debate. the role of the neg is not to confuse, it is to disprove, aka i am lenient on 2acs if more than 5 off are run.

good luck!

USE SPEECH DROP FOR FILE SHARE!!!!!!! https://speechdrop.net/

Run what you need. This is novice debate, so I know there's a learning curve. Make sure you take time to explain what you are saying and boil your case down to a few concrete voters. For novices, if you take the time to amply demonstrate not only your knowledge on your own case, but also clearly respond to your opponent, I am 100x more likely to vote your way. No judge prefers to only hear cards being read out in the last speeches, we want to hear your analysis too (plus you sound very very smart doing this when your opponent still seems to be glued to their computer when they go up to speak).

I will time both teams and can give signals if needed. I flow digitally.

Thank you, I hope you all enjoy debate! I applaud you all for taking this step into public speaking. It's definitely intimidating at first, but with time you will see yourself become a well-rounded speaker that can hopefully approach presentations, job interviews, and networking like its a piece of cake. Kansas is an amazing state (one of the best IMO but maybe I'm biased) to start your speech and debate career, and you will meet many wonderful people along the way. Best of all, it's never too late to start your time in this program, whether you're a freshman or a senior. There are so many benefits of speech and debate as it is endlessly rewarding. Know that with hard work, there is always opportunity for you to succeed in this amazing program, and I hope to see you come out again!!

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I have debated for 7 years, first in middle school then high school at Sumner Academy. I've also volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years. My default judging paradigm is as follows:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. Aff needs defend all stock issues to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA

CP: Not bad, am ok with PICs but can be convinced their not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The neg dropping a CP doesn't mean the perm drops (unless I'm told that's wrong).

T:

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of genetics, I'll probably need explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs except for a caveat (which I will get to). I don't really buy T or policy/state good args unless mishandled and I think these affs have a role in debate. HOWEVER, I hate rage politics or personal attacks against opponents. I get why calling your opponent racist or sexist helps your case, but it makes me disinterested, bored, and unable yo take your position seriously. If the opponents take the heat I'll listen but the moment they call you out it's an immediate loss. If you still want to run rage politics, direct your rage at the system or me: I can take the heat it's fine.

However almost everything (minus rage politics) can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static.YOU have the power to convince me to completely change my paradigm, and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.

1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

2. My speed threshold is around 7/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please SLOW WAY DOWN on the analytics you don't put in the doc. I won't flow analytics if you zoom through them.

3. Open cross is fine.

4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.

Prefs

1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .

2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.

3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.

4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.

5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.

email: jaxterreros@gmail.com

*I have ADHD - I lose my attention - please gather it by screaming the campfire song by Spongebob*

Qualifications - 6'4, reads feminist literature, nonchalant, fluffy hair, golden retriever energy, frequent coffee shops, I actually believe we should fix the wage gap, that is not chill at all, I will help fight the patriarchy, my favorite color is pink, wear what you want, I may be late - gave out all 30 of my lambos to my friends, also using my backup computer bc my normal computer burned up in a fire that took over one of my 16 mansions around the world, basically zachirific (look up on tik tok to know my vibe)

Do not address me as Jaxson or Judge - I am DJT (Daniel Jaxson Terreros) or much like my glorious king Donald J Trump (this is not a link)

I think debate has gotten too liberal - complaining about clarity is an immediate 0 in speaks.

I think a lot of arguments are negative aura, but I will not tell you what.

If you glaze me for your ballot I understand why, but immediate dropped speaks.

Some of the people I look up to are Tom MacDonald, Ben Shapiro, Matthew Addelstein, Jared Spiers, and James Fishback.

The greatest debater I have ever seen is Will Sterbenc - if you match his white boy flow - immediate dub ngl.

If you read Western Georgia Liberation Front arguments your opponents will have a hard time convincing me not to vote for you.

I default to neg neg.

I cannot understand new age debate jargon - what is CX - please break down the debate in terms of brain rot - "skibidi" "goon" etc.

RVIs are peak

Analytical wipeout >>>

If you mention Jacob Wilkus or Owen Williams that is plus aura - you're tapped into the underground debaters.

If you're name is Sophie/Sofia/Sophia - yea ur losing bud - don't ever enter this room again.

If you bring me yk what I will guarantee you get boosted to finals - if you ask what I want you are not doing better than 1-3.

I'm colorblind - please have ur docs highlighted in blue

What is tech? What is truth? I know that I know nothing - probably Plato I think - I didn't really pay attention to my philosophy class.

An indict on anyone in our lab is boosted speaks - even if it doesn't apply.

If you have had your MCard taken I consider you one of my disciples - if you have taken an MCard - you have no valid opinion.

One final message - I use a full 100 point scale - you start at 0 - I will then convert it to a 30 point scale.

Good luck - have fun - goon on.

Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE

239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.

Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.

Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.