I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

Amelia Boor

Eisenhower High School

2 years experience in Policy Debate

Hello! I am Amelia Boor. I am a current High School debater at Eisenhower High School, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this year's topic.

I am someone who enjoys being able to listen and understand what you are talking about. I want to know that you have a firm understanding of the topic you are speaking of and the issues you are going to resolve.

I am comfortable with all speeds of debate, however I would rather be able to know that you understand all of the information rather than have mass amounts of that information sped through.

Flowing is something that I will personally do within all of the rounds that I judge, and I encourage others to do so as well. I also encourage debaters to keep track of and time their rounds and their opponents.

I would like to be included in the sharing of all evidence and information to ensure that it is being done well and smoothly.

Being able to listen to how you speak and recognize the confidence within your voice and your body language is a good indication as to how well you know your topic, I would like to see it integrated into how you debate.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

current second year debater at Eisenhower high school

She/her

DON'T BE A BULLY.

I will only flow cards that are signposted and tagged clearly

I will not flow cards that I cannot hear you read. I should not have to rely on files to understand your evidence.

Line by line is good in rebuttals but don't forget to analyze it for me and tell me why you win on each argument.

My default framework is policy maker unless you specifically tell me otherwise.

Hi its Katelyn I'm a 3rd Year debater it's me, so you could say I'm ready for it.

I am a Stock issues and Tabula Rasa judge. I will be flowing, but i want you to essentially write it for me TELL ME WHAT TO FLOW. not only will this make it easier for me to judge but it will also be very helpful for you and your opponents to have a good organized round.

For speed, I'm okay with speed reading just make sure your able to explain your cards afterwards to make it fully clear, and if you are going to spread make sure you can actually do it well. PLEASE SPEAK WELL, once again its just going to make it easier for everyone and I want to listen to something that you actually seem INTERESTED in.

For the overall round please explain your cards and state how they relate to the other teams arguments I WANT CLASH. also please please please have a road map for the beginning of each of your speeches once again it will just make it easier for everyone (exception for the 1AC of course unless you have framework). I really appreciate focusing on the stock issues but please don't let that be the only thing you bring up in the debate.

Rebuttals please run through the entire debate I appreciate the wording of "They said" "We said" its just once again very helpful for everyone. Just keep them neat organized, and I'm looking for impact calc here once again TELL ME WHAT TO FLOW.

I also want to mention that I won't decide who wins in the constructive speeches I will wait for every single speech to speak. So please don't give up if you feel your losing you still have time to sway me.

Also just for fun you can make any Taylor Swift references you might just make my day and get extra credit but you wont be graded on a curve.

Pet Peeves:

- Rudeness

- Saying you're going to lose the round before it even starts or even in the room for me to hear

- Talking AT me instead of TO me

- Not taking the round seriously (wasting everyone's time)

Examples:

- Say the Neg Answered all stock issues well enough that the majority of their arguments flow I will vote for the Neg.

- Neg will win on Topicality.

- CP it depends I feel it removes a lot of ground and it can be hard to win with but it is possible.

- Aff chooses framework and team that best fits that framework will win.

• I LOVE TURN ARGS and if you debate those well you will win (depends on the rest of the round of course).

TLDR:

Talk good. Stock Issues. Clean Slate.

Head Coach --- Goddard High School

Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School

15 years experience

> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <

AFF Cases

You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.

On-Case and Impacts

I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.

DAs

I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.

CPs

I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.

T

Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.

Ks / Theory

Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.

Delivery

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: immagivethe3nr@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:

If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.

"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest

# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)

Feelins bout stuff-

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.

On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.

Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.

Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.

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.

Hello and good luck! I’m data-driven and rational person. I will look for a logical flow and prefer you stayed on topic or only include relevant information. I enjoy diversity of thought and opinion. I make every effort not rely on my own beliefs but focus on the evidence presented.