I currently debate in the Open Policy Division for James Madison University (2020-present), and was a previous varsity debater at Woodgrove High School. Novice Finalist and JV Semi-Finalist for JV/Novice Nationals, 2nd round NDT Qualifier, CEDA Doubleoctafinalist and current president of JMU Debate. I am currently a coach for JMU's novice team. My specialty is in policy debate, but I also have experience judging both LD and Public Forum.

Please include me in the email chain:

dannisebrown@gmail.com

If you have any questions about anything regarding debate or JMU, please do not hesitate to contact me there! I'm happy to answer any questions or provide advice, and I could probably talk all day about the JMU debate team, especially if you're looking to do debate in college.

tech > truth

I am more likely to vote for you if you have good, warranted impact calc, analysis, and comparison. I need to know why I have to vote for you with urgency.

Here are some main pointers that would be good to follow:

1. Clarity > Speed

There is no advantage or point in spreading if I can't understand anything you're saying. I'd much rather have clear and concise diction than slurred arguments. I am fine with spreading, but only if you can be understood by others.

2. CX

Open cross-examination is fine with me--its great to help each other out. However, I won't give you good speaks if you talk over your partner or don't let them answer questions.

3. Language

No sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. comments. Your speaks will be docked if there is offensive language within (or outside of) the debate round.

4. Kritiks

I love critical arguments; but do not assume I've heard of your K before. Fleshed out, well explained Ks make for a good debate round, as it is hard for me to vote for a K if it isn't explained well enough or if you don't understand the K yourself. I can tell when you're word vomiting, so just don't do it!! I need good link explanation and impact analysis.

5. Theory/FW

Please for the love of god do not read anything along the lines of "Kritiks are exclusionary and big words bad" I will not vote on it. This is the one clear exception I have to "run what you want to". It is not a convincing argument and often ends up being discriminatory, and you do not want to be in that position in front of me.

6. Prep

Prep time should end after the document is saved, and debaters will be expected to keep their own time. Do not steal prep time, and flow when the timer has started. Emphasis on keeping your own time, it's good to know where you are in the debate and it doesn't look good if I am forced to tell you to stop your speech.

7. Speaks

Things that will boost your speaks: flowing, good organizational skills, good cx questions, good technical skills and correct usage of debate lingo. +.5 points if you make me laugh in round.

Things that will lower your speaks: offensive language, rudeness towards teammates or opponents, stealing prep, hogging open cx, not interacting with your opponent's arguments, and cheating. Sexism, racism, queerphobia, and predjudice of any kind will not be accepted in a debate I'm judging and will result in sub-twenty speaker points, or the lowest the tournament will allow me to administer.

8. Online debate

I'd prefer to have everyone's cameras on if able unless prepping, its a little awkward to listen to a speech given by a black screen.

I have some experience in the current topic, but it isn't extensive, so please keep that in mind when debating. Debate is a wonderful place to test your knowledge, challenge or be challenged, is great for education, and is a safe space, so remember to be respectful of everyone in the room.

Let's debate!

Mya Colburn (she/her)

Please add me to the email chain: mcolburn555@gmail.com

My Background

- I debated policy at La Crosse Central High School from 2019-2023 (topics were arms sales, criminal justice, water policy, and NATO)

- I was mainly a Kritik debater, especially towards the end of my career. Because of this, I am familiar with the main idea of most national circuit Ks

- I am currently studying Health Sciences at the University of Minnesota Rochester

Arguments

- I am typically a Tabs judge, I will judge whatever you give me a good reason to judge. If you are going to run Topicality, Kritiks, etc give me a reason why I should vote for them.

- If you do not give me a clear reason to vote for a particular argument I will fall back on weighing impacts. Whichever team has the clearest and most realistic impact will win the round.

- I am generally tech>truth, but if you run a good truth>tech framing, I will evaluate the round as such.

- Do impact calculus and clash with the other teams arguments. Minimize how much work I have to do at the end of the round.

- I tend to be against topicality and other vague theory arguments. If you run them you should have a clear reason why this makes it nearly impossible for you to debate in this round.

- I am really looking for a solid rebuttal that lays out the arguments in this particular debate and shows me why I should vote for a particular side.

Other Notes

- I have done very minimal research on this years topic so make sure you are clearly outlining the inherency and links of your argument

- I am good with speed as long as the tags are clear and you read the text of the card without mumbling. If you are making an analytical argument you need to slow down and make it clearly (especially if it is not on the doc).

- I am okay with a open CX as long as the person whose CX it is and the person who is being CX'd do the majority of the talking. Partners can make a point or two and add ideas but if they are answering/asking every question I will start to lower speaks.

General notes

• I can flow pretty well but I am in college so it's not something I do a lot of: clear sign posting and organizing your speeches is extremely helpful when you're spreading.
• Related I don't have much experience on this year's topic so if you can spell out your args I'm more likely to understand your arguments (don't just read cards, do analysis)
• I will say clear if I can't understand you.
• I'm okay with pretty much any args, just please don't run death good or hateful args.

2024 TOC update:

I have exclusively been coaching/judging college debate for the last 2 years and have done almost zero research on this year's high school topic. Please keep this in mind if I am judging you and err on the side of over-explaining.

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

tayjdebater@gmail.com, dukesdebate@gmail.com

Currently the Interim Director of Debate at JMU. I debated on the local Missouri Circuit as a high school student and debated for 3 years at UCF when they still had a policy team (2011-2014). I coached Berkeley Prep for 2 years while in college, coached JMU as a grad student, took some time off to finish my PhD, and have recently returned to debate.

My MA thesis was about Indigenous anti-nuclear movements and I've spent a fair amount of time researching the intersections of settler colonialism, environmental justice, and nuclear testing/uranium mining/radioactive waste storage, so I have a higher-than-average amount of topic knowledge on that end of the topic, but probably a lower-than-average amount of knowledge on the various weapons systems/tech/military strategy side of the topic.

If I seem crabby in the round, there's a high probability it's not your fault. The later in the tournament it is, the higher that probability gets - my ability to mask my crabby faces/moderate my vocal tone is inversely related to my tiredness/hunger/stress levels, so I'm probably not actually mad at you, just irritated at the world.

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

I tend to prioritize solvency/links first when evaluating a debate. I think it's totally possible to win zero risk of an impact and I'm definitely willing to vote on presumption (but if that's your strategy I expect you to do the work to make it explicit).

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped things only matter if you make them matter. It is your job to frame the voting issues in the round for me and make it clear how I should weigh arguments against one another.

I prefer to minimize how much evidence I read after the round. I expect you to do more than shadow extend things. If all I have on my flow by the end of the round is an author name, I'm not hunting that card down to figure out the warrant for you.

I flow on paper and line things up on my flow. Please give me sufficient pen time on analytics, signpost, and keep things organized. If I am unable to get something on my flow because you did not do these things or because you were not clear, that's a you problem. I will always do my best to get everything written down, even if it's in the wrong place, but it will make it more difficult for me to meaningfully weigh arguments against each other, which means longer decision times and probably worse decisions.

I don't flow CX, but will pay attention throughout CX and jot down notes if something particularly important/eye-catching seems to be happening. If something occurs in CX that you want me to vote on, it needs to make it into a speech.

I do not follow the speech doc while flowing. I may have the document open and refer to specific cards if they are referenced in CX, but I won't be flowing from your doc or reading your evidence along with you during your speech.

Stylistic things

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, and unless you're planning to ask questions about the extra cards they added, please don't make us wait to start CX until they send them. I will keep as close to a running clock as possible - we all have a role to play in making sure the tournament runs on time, and we all want a chance to get a halfway decent amount of sleep.

If you play music/videos/etc. while you are speaking, please ensure the volume of the music is substantially quieter than the volume of your voice. I have some auditory processing issues that make it extremely difficult for me to understand people's voices while there is any kind of background noise. I want to flow and evaluate your arguments, but I can't do that if I can't process your words.

I vote on things that happened during the debate. I do not vote on things that the other team (or their friends, coaches, squad-mates, acquaintances, enemies, etc.) did during pre-round prep, in the hallway yesterday, at the bar last tournament, this morning at the hotel, etc. I will not attempt to adjudicate interpersonal events I was not present to witness.

I generally think debate is good. That doesn't mean I think debate is perfect. There are absolutely valid critiques of debate that should be addressed, and I think there is value in pushing this activity to be the best version of itself. However, if your arguments rely on the assumption that debate is irredeemably bad, I'm probably not the right judge for you. I think you need a model of debate that you think is desirable and achievable within the confines of an activity in which two sides argue with each other and at the end one side is selected as a winner.

Most debaters would benefit from slowing down by about 20%. Not because speed is bad, but because few debaters are actually clear enough for the average judge to get a good flow when you're going at 100% speed.

Examples, examples, examples. If you take one thing away from my paradigm, it is that I like to be given examples. What does your theory look like in practice? What kinds of plans are included/excluded under your T interp? Etc.

Please do not assume I know what your acronyms/etc mean. If I don't know what the bill/organization/event you're talking about is, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate your link story.

I will open the speech doc, but will not necessarily follow along. I may look at a card if something spicy happens in CX, if you're referring to a card in a rebuttal, etc., but I do not look at or flow from the doc. If you are not clear enough for me to flow without looking at your doc, I will not fill in gaps from the doc.

Ethics Violations:

I take ethics challenges extremely seriously. I consider them to be an accusation of academic dishonesty equivalent to plagiarism. Just like any other instance of academic dishonesty, ethics violations can have serious consequences for debaters and programs, and the perception that our activity condones such behavior could have serious repercussions for the survival of our activity. If an ethics challenge is issued, that is the end of the debate. If the tournament invitation includes a protocol for handling ethics challenges, I will follow the tournament rules. If the tournament does not have a clear set of protocols, I will clarify that an ethics challenge has been issued, make a determination in regards to the challenge, and either vote for the team issuing the challenge or for the team against whom the challenge was issued.

If you become aware of something you think might be an ethics violation prior to the round (you notice a card that is cited incorrectly, etc.) I would STRONGLY PREFER that you reach out to the team/their coach before the round and let them know/give them a chance to fix it, rather than initiating an ethics challenge in the round.

Because of the seriousness of ethics challenges, I consider it the responsibility of the team issuing the challenge to 1) prove that a violation (defined as card clipping or intentionally manufacturing or mis-representing the source or content of evidence) occurred and 2) provide a reasonable degree of evidence that the violation was intentional or malicious (i.e., I do not consider someone mumbling/stumbling over words because they were tired to be the same thing as intentional card clipping, and do not think it should have the same consequences).

That said, I understand that proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible standard. I do not expect you to prove exactly what was going on in the other team's mind when the event happened. However, you should be able to show that the other team reasonably should have known that the cite was wrong, the text was missing, etc. and chose to engage in the behavior knowing that it was unethical. I do not think we should be accusing people of academic dishonesty as a strategy to win a round. I also do not think we should be engaging in cheating behavior to win rounds. No one debater's win record is worth more than the continued health of our activity as a whole. If we would like this activity to continue, we must have ethical standards, including not cheating and not frivolously accusing people of cheating.

Speaker Points:

These are relative for each division (e.g., what I consider an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in novice will be different from what I think of as an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in varsity)

29.5-30: You should be in the top 3 speakers at the tournament. I can count the number of times I have given above a 29.5 on one hand.

29-29.5: This was an incredible performance. I expect you to be in late out rounds at this tournament and/or to win a speaker award

28.6-29: This was an above-average performance. Something about your speeches/CXs impressed me. Keep this up and I anticipate you will clear.

28.3-28.6: This was an average performance. You had some good moments, but nothing incredible happened.

27.5-28.3: I like your attitude. Some rough things happened during this round. Maybe you dropped an off-case position, only read blocks, were extremely unclear, etc.

Below a 27.5: Something majorly wrong has happened in this round. You failed to participate meaingfully in the debate and/or failed to demonstrate basic human decency toward other people in the room.

Case debate

Yes, please. I love a good case debate, particularly when it is grounded in specific and detailed analysis of what the aff claims their plan/advocadcy does vs what their cards actually say.

T/Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and enjoy them. Ultimately, these are debates about what we think debate should be. Because of that, I think you need a clear description of what your model of debate looks like, what it includes/excludes, and why that's a good thing.

Debate is an educational activity unlike any other, and I think that's a good thing. I generally default to believing education is the most important impact in these debates, but can absolutely be persuaded that something else (i.e. fairness) should come first.

Despite what I just said, I think the competitive nature of debate is also good, which means there should probably be at least some parameters for what the activity looks like that allows both sides a reasonable shot at winning. What that looks like is up for debate.

I prefer affirmatives with some clear tie to the resolution. That doesn't mean you have to fiat a topical plan text, but I do think it means debate is better when the affirmative is at least in the direction of the topic and/or about the same general content as the resolution.

Your TVA needs to actually access whatever offense the aff is leveraging against T. Lots of TVAs fail this test. I think a good TVA can be super important, but a bad TVA is typically a complete waste of time.

Against policy affs, I think giving me specific examples of ground you lost (not just "we lost some DAs" but "We specifically couldn't read these 2 core DAs and this core CP") is important. If you can show in-round abuse via spiking out of links, that would be ideal.

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

If your counterplan has a bajillion hyper-specific planks, you need to slow down enough for me to at least get an idea of what they are in the 1NC.

I like counterplans that are specific, well-researched, and have a clear basis in a solvency advocate. I don't love counterplans that have a million planks that are not clearly explained until the block or the 2nr and are not grounded in some kind of solvency advocate/literature.

You should be able to clearly articulate how the implementation of the CP works. I think most aff teams should spend more time articulating solvency deficits based on the negative team's inability or refusal to articulate what the implementation process of the CP looks like in comparison to the aff.

I think conditionality is good, within reason. I think PICs are good, within reason. I think multi-actor fiat, counterplans with a zillion planks, etc. are probably not great, but generally are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced that any of the above opinions are wrong, given the right arguments by either team.

Disads

Please make clear what your acronyms mean, what your specific link story is, etc. early in the debate. I don't spend a ton of time judging giant big-stick policy rounds, so I'm probably not as versed in this literature as you. Please don't make me spend 20 minutes after the debate trying to decipher your impact scenario. Give me a very clear explanation in the 2nc/1nr overview.

Kritiks

I think the aff gets to weigh their impacts if they prove that the ideas underwriting those impacts are good and accurate. I think the neg gets links to the aff's reps/discourse/etc. I think the negative needs to win a specific link to the aff (i.e., not just to the status quo) and also either that the links are sufficient to undermine the aff's internal links (i.e. I should vote on presumption) or that the alternative can resolve the links. I don't think any of those statements are particularly controversial.

The role of the ballot is to decide who did the better debating in this round. Always. How I should evaluate what counts as "better debating" is up for debate, but I am pretty unsympathetic to obviously self-serving roles of the ballot.

If you say the phrase "vote aff to vote neg" or "vote neg to vote aff" in a round I am judging, you owe me $10.

About me:

-I use He/Him pronouns

-I debated for 3 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin on the Surveillance, China, and Education topics. All three of them were in Policy although I did do a bit of PF my first year.

-I'm have a B.S. from UW-Madison in Econ, Environmental Studies, Mathematics, and Stats and a MA in Economics from the University of Chicago

-Email: jerimiah.koll@gmail.com

-put me on the email chain, it saves time so in the situation I need to look at a card at the end of the round I don't need to steal one of your laptops to get it. (especially if its remote)

General:

Tell me how to vote and why and I'll do it as long as you do a good job explaining. That being said there are some things that require a little more work than others so take note of them below. When you extend cards/args you need to actually explain the thesis of the card and show you understand the arguments you're making, reading another card really doesn't do you any favors, pulling out warrants from your first card does much better.

If your making a fairness arg I like actual examples, hypothetical abuse or potential abuse aren't great arguments to make. That being said I generally prefer the educational value to the debate above fairness.

The more realistic your scenario is the more likely I am to vote for it. Your impacts don't have to be nuclear war causing mass extinction and I'd prefer if they weren't. Instead of nuclear war impacts use real world impacts because nuclear war isn't going to happen, if it does you can tell me "I told you so".

I'm good with speed, just try to be clear, I can't flow stuff I didn't hear. If you drop 10 perms in 30 seconds there's a good chance I miss 8 of them just like the other team. You gotta slow down for tags, perms, and the like. Also make sure you signpost so I know what flow I'm putting stuff on, if you leave it up to me there's a chance it ends up on the wrong flow. In general, going about 10% slower than your top speed is a great way to get amazing speaks and have me actually flow what you're saying. This is especially important for when you're debating online.

I didn't judge at all last year so do with that info what you will

Just because I'm on the email chain doesn't mean I'm gonna comb through your cards looking for warrants, its your job to tell me the warrants from your cards.

Random Preferences:

Topicality: I rarely ran or enjoyed T when I was debating which is a shame because I think T has the potential to be a really interesting debate but it just hasn't in my experience. You'll need to go all in on T in the 2NR to win on it, and it really helps to cite actual abuse that destroys neg ground. I'll be much more sympathetic to a team running T against a clearly untopical plan than if you're just running T as another arg. If you say "we didn't have prep on this aff" and then have case args blocked out anyway its unlikely I'm gonna vote for you. I really don't like super nitpicky T, so substantial T is unlikely to get my vote.

Ks: I really like when I have a clear picture of what the alt is and it makes it much easier for me to vote on Ks when you do that work instead of expecting me to decipher what the alt is. I ran a lot of Cap, Bio-power, Militarism, and Fem Theory and have a fair amount of experience with Enviro and Set Col lit. I have some experience with more obscure/esoteric Ks but if you have to ask if I know the lit, I probably don't. In order to win on the K you have to show me you understand what exactly the K is doing and explain the theory behind it, if you can't you're gonna lose.

Framework: I really like framework debates and its probably the most important flow in the round. If you win the framework flow there's a good chance you win the round because you just told me to prioritize your impacts. You need to show a clear understanding of both frameworks and do a good job explaining why yours is the best/leads to the best outcome to win framework. I generally default to some sort of utilitarianism, not because I'm particularly utilitarian, but its the framework that most teams implicitly use.

"Climate change isn't real/not a threat/not anthropogenic": So this isn't a great arg in the first place so I'm not sure why people like to run it but I've seen far more of it than I care for. Its highly unlikely I vote for this, the other team would have to drop the ball completely for me to say climate change isn't real. If the other team runs this arg, you should use it as an independent voter, so running climate change isn't real is a reason that team should lose.

CX: Open but its still their speech, asking all the questions for your partner will get both of you poor speaks.

Paper 1ACs: if y'all are gonna spend the rest of the round on your laptops you're wasting paper and time as a fun little strat. Don't. If you don't email it out at the end of the 1AC I will drop you.

PF:

I have much less experience with PF than Policy but don't let that stop you from running what you want to. I may have been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of teams in PF adopting speed. I understand the strategic implications of speed and all that but everything I said about speed in Policy applies doubly so in PF, you should speak 10-20% slower than your top speed given how heavy on analytics PF is.

Please keep cross civil, also remember that cross is still a speech so keep the first two (mostly) closed.

Personal Background: I debated four years in Wisconsin. I competed at NCFLs and NSDAs 4 times each. Most of my experience is in PF, Congress, and extemp but I have some experience with other events.

Include me on Email Chains please: rspors25@gmail.com

The vast majority of the rounds I have judged this year are policy rounds. That being said, don't spread in front of me. If you are spreading, share a speech doc, but just please don't. If you are running a K, T, or CP, you better be ready to explain it well (For example if you are running a T don't just rattle off the tags Education, Time abuse etc. Explain these arguments to me well). I tend to prefer 1 or 2 well reasoned arguments over 15 tags with no links or warrants.

TLDR: Have good ethics, Trust the Flow, Don't be a jerk.

Policy:

If you have received a blast and I am your policy judge, please know my experience is in PF/LD in a very traditional district. A fairly low level of Speed is okay but if I can't hear you I can't flow you. I will keep a flow and I will vote on the flow. If you are running a theory or a K it will take work to convince me but I am not against these types of arguments. Topicality or Framework arguments are things I am far more familiar with and I also tend to find them more relevant to the round than other theory arguments. In essence, convince me that your plan would work, and is the best solution. If you are the neg, Convince me they are wrong.

PF: Constructive: Speed is fine as long as you are clear. If you are unclear I will stop flowing and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot. I competed in a very traditional district so that is what I am most familiar with. If you are running some sort of progressive debate, make it a strong case. I think progressive arguments are overused in PF. If you are running something weird, explain it well and convince me. I think debate is ultimately an event based in convincing your opponents and judge. Convince me your argument isn't so weird.

Rebuttal: I want a line by line. 2nd rebuttal should include responses to 1st rebuttal otherwise it is dropped. That being said, don't be toxic and attempt to spread people out of rounds by arguing you should win the round based on a dropped third subpoint on your sixth response to their observation. Win the round via solid argumentation not some trick.

Summary: Summary is the hardest speech in a round. As a general rule, if something isn't in your summary it better not be in your final focus. Summary is a speech for crystalizing your arguments into something that can be used in your final focus and weighing. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH. If you don't weigh, you make me weigh. You will be sad because I may not weigh your voters favorably, I will be sad because you made me do more work. Don't make everyone sad. Weigh! Also don't just say "we win on timeframe and scope and yada yada yada" I can do that. Tell me why, under the established framework you are winning in a way that means you must win the round. If you want to use all those fancy weighing words, don't just shout the buzzwords at me. Tell me why I should be deciding the round in terms of timeframe, magnitude etc.

Final Focus: Give me the voters. Tell me why you're winning the important points of the round and tell me why that means you're winning the round. The final focus is not "Rebuttal: Reprise" (nor is the summary for that matter). Please do not just word vomit every card your side read the whole round. Tell me why you won.

LD:

Values and Criterions are important. Treat them like they are important. Whichever value wins out is how I am going to weigh the round. Make your arguments in terms of the values and weigh under the criteria.

Lincoln Douglas is a debate of values and morals. Keep that in mind.

Progressive debate is fine just make it make sense.

Everything I said above about speed, argumentation and weighing remains true for LD.

Congress:

1. This event is called congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving. Use your speech times to advance an argument, to directly clash with other speakers, and to persuade the audience to your side. That being said while I do want a well-reasoned debate, you are also essentially cosplaying as senators so there is some room for theatrics and if done well, this can add to your speech. A boring speech is not very persuasive.
2. SPEED! Speed does not belong in this event whatsoever. You are senators persuading the body to vote one way or another on a bill not policy debaters.
3. I would rather you give no speech at all than a repetitive, pre-written speech that takes time from other debaters who want to bring up new points.
4. Questioning periods, points, and motions weigh heavily on my ballot. Use these to your advantage. Answering questions well is HUGE for me. Effective use of parli pro is impressive to see, but incorrect use is a big disadvantage.
5. I will rank the PO as we are instructed to do. If you are an excellent PO you are likely in the running for the top spot in my rankings. If you are a poor PO you will likely find yourself near the bottom. Being a good PO is about running a fair and efficient chamber. I want that chamber to run like a well oiled machine.
6. Evidence, Follow the same ethics and evidence things I have stated below.

General Things for Everyone:

The Flow: In this round the flow is going to be king. If I can't understand you I can't flow you and if it isn't on my flow it isn't on my ballot.

Critique: I will disclose if they let me. I will give a oral critique if they let me. Everything will be on the ballot. I know how valuable that feedback is to coaches and competitors alike. If you are unhappy with my oral critique, look to my ballot for more information. If you have any questions, ask them. I am more than happy to give more advice/feedback. If you are just postrounding trying to argue about my decision. Don't, that's annoying.

Evidence Ethics:IMPORTANT There is nothing that irritates me more than shoddy evidence standards. This is an educational activity and if there is a card to which the content is in question it is possible I will call for said card. Be prepared. I want to be included in your email chains (rspors25@gmail.com).

Cross: Don't be abusive. Be assertive. I think cross is one of the most informative parts of a debate round. I will be actively listening but not actively flowing. If something is conceded in cross, it is conceded. That being said, it still needs to be brought up in speeches to make my ballot. If something important happens during cross, explicitly tell me "Judge write that down" I will but then I will expect you to elaborate in a speech.

Speaker points: I will probably be pretty generous with speaks. If you are racist, homophobic, sexist, Antisemitic, or anything else bad, expect the speaks to reflect that. Cross is a really good way to impress me and show me that you are a 30 pt speaker.

yes please include me on email chain- warrensprouse@gmail.com

Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.

Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.

Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.

Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.

If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.

About me:

I am currently a student at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, majoring in Information Science and Technology.

I debated Policy Debate for Ronald Reagan High School for 4 years (2017-2021).

Current Assistant Director for Ronald Reagan Debate Team (2021-present)

Please put me on the e-mail chain<3 : nickdebate12@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I believe in tech over truth, making sure that you respond to all arguments on the table. Typically, I am more K sided in understanding than policy. I think policy args when done in large successions can get draining and uneducational. I LOVE to see a good k debate round with an interesting alt and clash coming from the aff team. Though, when it comes to technicality, I often vote on policy args (DAs, Ts, CPs) when they are not responded well enough.

Make sure you are respectful toward your partner, the debaters you are competing against and the judge. More importantly, please be respectful towards the topics and concepts you bring up/go against. The beauty of Policy Debate is the opportunity teams get to address current social issues and personal experiences. Please maintain a level of respect when addressing them. Disrespect can and WILL negatively affect your speaker points.