I have 3 years debate experience, I will vote on a team if they prove either the plan is better than the current status quo, or the current status quo is better. other than that I also vote heavily on if someone convinces me, you have to convince me why you win.

I will also add that I don't like spreading, and being rude to the opposing team.

Hello! I am Lily Avila, I am a third-year debater, and I use She/They pronouns.

For my paradigm, I just want to say that I will never tell you to not run something. As long as it makes sense and you know what you are running, I'm fine. I know what it's like to debate and I've been in your shoes, just do your best and have fun! If you have any questions about anything from my paradigm or your ballot, you can contact me via email: lily.av.1120@gmail.com.

Paradigm specifications:

-I do not like Kritiks, but you can run them as long as they make sense and YOU also understand what you're running.

-I LOVE impact calc. give me a reason to vote for your case and/or what will happen if we don't. The same goes for the neg team; tell me what will happen if we pass this plan versus if we don't.

Have fun!!

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 2nd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

Hi I'm Rex, I'm a third year debater and I prefer They/Them pronouns.

The only on-case issues I enjoy hearing are topicality and solvency, the other ones tend to make you come off as a jerk.

I will not consider a kritik a voting issue unless it directly links to the Affirmative. [Aff this means the best way for you to beat a K is to attack the link] Same thing goes for DAs

I do flow, however, it is not my job to interpret or read your evidence so if I don't understand an argument you've ran I also will not consider it a voting issue.

Signpost your arguments so I know where exactly your argument goes on the flow - this will help me understand your arguments

Make sure when you give an offtime roadmap that it is BRIEF

I do tend to prefer off-case arguments when weighing a round however on-case has its purpose and should be argued as well

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

asra june --- she/her

3rd year varsity/dci debater at shawnee mission south

add me to the chain: asrajune.debate@gmail.com

novices:

be kind above anything else. to be transparent, i am 1000x less likely to vote for you if you're mean and belittling to the other team. novice debate is about learning the activity before anything else, there is quite literally nothing at stake. being good at novice debate doesn't give you a pass to insult two random freshmen you just met. this doesn't mean don't have swag, you should be confident in your arguments, just don't be mean.

speed is fine, just be clear.

im good w/ any argument. as much as "tech>truth" means basically nothing in this context, its the way i'll evaluate the debate. remember, truth informs tech, the less true (and warranted!) an argument is the less tech you need to beat it. i'll attempt to evaluate the debate w/ as little bias as possible, using offense/defense to determine who wins as default unless given a reason to evaluate the debate otherwise. I've done both policy and k debate, and i've been debating long enough where i'll know what you're talking about. I'm more than comfortable evaluating these debates at a novice level. that being said,

arguments need warrants. i cannot emphasize this enough. even if they dropped an important argument, you still have the burden of explaining the argument w/ warrants, and impacting out why that matters for other parts of the debate. identify what you're winning, and why that means i vote for you. doing this will win you 99% of novice debates. bonus points if you can identify what the other team is winning, and why them winning that argument doesn't matter.

do line by line. most novice debates end up a card reading contest, without making arguments about why those cards respond to the other teams argument. don't do this. you should clash with the other teams arguments! flowing in a novice debate, and using your flow to answer arguments/cards the other team reads (use what you have flowed to directly respond, i.e in a "they say [argument], no, we say [argument]" format during your speech) will win you 99% of these debates in front of me. just remember to warrant out why your argument is true. the flow is how i decide debates, so using your flow to debate aligns the way you debate with how i decide debates.

orders/roadmaps should organize my flow. the order/roadmap is not "first impact calc, and then summarizing the whole debate", because i don't have seperate flows for those things. 1NC order should always be the # of off case, and then the advantages. beyond that, the order should instead be which advantages you'll be on, and which off case arguments you'll be on. i.e "the order is the IRS DA, the States CP, then advantage one, and advantage two". if you're aff, case comes first always. if you're neg, off case should come first. offense before defense.

any questions? please ask. i'm here to help you learn, so if anything here is confusing, or doesn't make sense, just ask me. do keep in mind that my feedback will be in the context of national circuit debate, because thats what i do. if you want more lay feedback, i can give it to you, but i'm likely not paying too close attention to the things lay judges care about. i know debate can be anxiety-inducing, but we're all just here to help you learn this fantastic activity. policy debate is the hardest style of debate, and is incredibly hard to learn for everyone, you all are doing great!

Hi my name is Madison Kujawa, i'm a senior at Shawnee Mission South and this is my fourth year in debate

Pronouns (she/her)

Call me Madison instead of judge

Heres my email in case you have questions later: Mkujawa05@gmail.com

Basic things: Speech drop or email chain is good, I prefer speech drop but whatever works, do not steal prep, flows are good, do them right, don't say they dropped something when they didn't I will also be flowing. Most importantly do not be mean to the other team, any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any form of hate to the other team will not be tolerated and will result in loss of the debate and I will be talking to coach's.

actual debate stuff:

DA: Yes love them

CP: Yes love them

T: Yes if explained well

aff: do whatever just explain why its important

K: i'm not super familiar but if explained well I see no problem with it

Please explain to me why I should vote for you provide analytics/impact calc

If any thing above is unclear or need more clarification on something please ask:)

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.

Name: Lilly Montez

Pronouns: She/Her

School affiliation: Goddard Highschool

Years of Experience: 1

# of Rounds on this Year’s Topic: 12

I like to see respectful yet aggressive debating amongst debaters who know what they’re talking about.

• Topicality

• Significance of Harm

• Inherency

• Solvency

• Advantage Over Disadvantage

Debaters should approach their constructive speeches with confidence and an understanding of their argument.

Debaters should approach rebuttals with minor aggression and defensive ideas. They shouldn’t be afraid to be harsh in saying why the other team is wrong.

Debaters should approach evidence by having reputable sources that are recent and relevant to their arguments.

I value on case debate a lot in round. Each team needs to know their case and be able to defend it well. A good off case isn’t worth much if there are no good on case to back it up.

The affirmative team needs to convince me of three things to win. That their plan would solve a major problem, that their plan is the best way to solve that problem, and that passing their plan can overcome the consequences of making it law.

The negative team either needs to present a strong and more convincing counterplan, or poke enough holes in the affirmative teams argument to convince me that they don’t meet the criteria necessary to win.

I will not tolerate just blatant screaming at each other in a round or disrespectful cross-examination. There is a fine line between aggressive debating and not being sportsmanlike. Also, do not waste my time with any stupid cases.

I enjoy seeing aggressive debate and strong cross-examination. I also like to see confident debaters that know they have what's needed to win.

SPEAKER POINTS

30 = 1

29.5 and above = 1

29 and above = 1

28.7 and above = 2

28.5 = 2

28.4 and below = 3

28 and below = 3

27 and below = 4

Below a 26 = 4

I prefer respectful and sportsmanlike conduct. Like I said previously, there is a fine line between this and aggressive debating. Just know, if you’re blatantly being a jerk in round, you will not get my vote.

I like fast debaters, especially if they don’t need to stare at their evidence the entire time, it shows that they know what they’re doing. However, there is such a thing as too fast. If I can’t understand or flow your speech it’s too fast.

Aggressive cross-examination and strong questioning are important to win. I won’t tolerate screaming or unsportsmanlike arguing in cross-examination.

Each team should keep track of their own prep time and alert me when they’re wanting to begin prep time. I will try to keep track, but in case of time-keeping errors, each team should keep their own time.

To calculate the harm of the affirmative teams impact they’ll need to win on two of three things, impact, probability, and timeframe. I will take into consideration the negative teams attack on impacts also.

The affirmative team’s argument needs to be topical and meet all constraints to do so. If the negative team is able to convince me that the affirmatives plan isn’t topical it will make a difference in my decision.

The negative needs to convince me that there are disadvantages to passing the affirmative plan, and enough of them for me not to vote affirmative.

The negative team would also benefit from having an attainable counterplan that is, in any way, better than the affirmative teams.

I don’t mind kritiks, but I’d rather not waste my time hearing you mumble off propaganda. If it’s applicable, makes sense, and is presented well I wouldn’t mind them.

I go about my RFD by thinking about all of the impacts and advantages that the affirmative team presents, and how the negative combats these. Whether they say that some of their evidence is false, their plan won’t work or costs too much, it’s not a real problem. Whatever it is, I will consider the pros and cons of both teams when coming to my decision.

Overall, just try your best and make sure you understand your argument. Have fun and make memories!

When done right and respectfully debate is fun and a good way to get involved in your school. Good job and I wish you luck in your next round!

Hey, I'm rea!! I'm a sophomore at Kansas state. I did 4 years Policy in HS at Piper and another year in college at KSU.

That being said, I'm very familiar with the debate space, so run whatever you'd like. I love Ks, I'm fine with theory as long as it's truly applicable, and any other sort of argument is good with me (including petty T). I tend to veer more towards realistic impacts as opposed to extinction, but it isn't a ballot breaker for me.

K affs are great, but if you are doing a performance K aff, be sure you keep with that performance.

For any argument you run, be sure you're aware of who you are, and who those in the room with you are. Please don't speak over people's lived experiences, and don't run Ks that don't pertain to you unless they absolutely link. (i.e, if you're straight, don't run a queer K unless the aff is legitimately homophobic)

I respect being assertive and sticking to your guns, but there is a line. If you're being openly racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic you will lose and it will make the ballot. if you're being unreasonably rude to your competition, you will lose, it'll make the ballot. I don't play those games in rounds and I won't play them while judging either. Be a decent person.

that being said, make it interesting. I want a good round, not some cookie-cutter.

My email is montgomery.reagan282@gmail.com -Pls add me to the email chain.

I straddle between the policymaker and stock issue paradigms. I am somewhat sympathetic to tabula rasa, but I usually go either policymaker or stock issues.

I dislike spreading speed. Otherwise, I am open to following and flowing your round as you deliver it. If you can persuade me that your particular strategy is advantageous for implementing or defending your policy position, you have liberty to use it. I prefer straightforward debate rather than hairsplitting the rules; topicality fights are the main reason I am not a pureplay stock issues judge; but I have had very occasional rounds where topicality indeed decided the ballot. I strongly dislike generic DAs. I am lukewarm about Ks and counterplans, but I have occasionally voted for teams employing them. Whatever your strategy, persuade me that it makes sense, with logic and documentation.

I debated three years in high school, and I have judged approximately 20 topic-years since high school. I have judged at three NCFL national tournaments, one day each during the first-day prelim rounds.

"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.

Hi! I'm Angelica :) I'm a former debater for Dodge City High School and I now serve as the assistant coach. I've competed in Lincoln-Douglas & Policy, preferring policy. I am a stock issues lover, as it's how I was raised in my first years of debate.

I LOVE it when things are explained simply. I am neurodivergent and things like summaries at the end of cards are awesome for me, not necessary though. I am not a fan of spreading, but if you MUST, I'd like a copy of evidence to help me follow along. CPs are okay with me! I'm not a fan of K args but if you're gonna run them please explain them to me, while I consider myself smart, I am not good at focusing. yes to theory too btw!

tl;dr

• love stock issues so much
• i prefer you don't spread but give me evidence to follow if u need to!
• yes to counterplans
• ok to kritiks BUT explain them well plz
• yes theory args
• thanks 4 being in debate :)

other things about me because i love talking about myself:

• i love taylor swift & boygenius
• i have chronic bronchitis -- it's not contagious! but please don't hate me if i cough
• i am a queer mexican woman -- take this into consideration before running Ks related to my identity
• i live in lawrence, ks part time
• i'm a criminal justice major on my school's pre-law track
• i love when girls, nb people, and POC are involved in debate!

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

I've been involved in high school debate for about three years. I mostly did policy debate, and I am mostly a policy judge, but I also did a few rounds of LD debate and congressional debate, so I think that I’ll probably understand what you are saying if I judge you in LD or congress. I’ve qualified for the NSDA national tournament twice, once in policy and once in congressional debate as a representative.

I would consiter myself a tabula rasa judge, but i'm not a really big fan of K-affs and PICs. That doesn’t mean that I’m automatically going to vote against you if you run something like a K, and I will usually vote on every argument in the round, but I think that stock issues should always be the top priority for both teams.

I also believe that performance and the learning of real-world skills are important elements of modern debate.

I have my feelings about specific arguments and debate tactics in policy debate listed below:

Stock Issues -

I think that stock issues are the backbone of policy debate, and I think that they should be the most highly prioritized arguments in a debate round. I won't vote against you if you are the neg and you only run off case arguments, and I consider all arguments in a round to be valid, but I still believe that stock issues are needed for good and productive debate. If you are the affirmative and your 1AC is very clearly missing one or more of the stock issues, I won't automatically vote against you, but I will be very tempted to.

Topicality -

I also think that topicality is a great argument, but most of the time it isn't run very well and tends to miss key parts of what should be in a good T argument. However, like anything else, I am still willing to vote on topicality as long as the argument makes sense and is run well.

DAs and CPs -

I think that disads and counterplans are also great arguments in debate because they do a good job of challenging the competitiveness of the affirmative plan. However, DO NOT RUN PICs. They are the only arguments in debate that I completely refuse to vote on. If the aff plan is so good that you have to run it as a counterplan, then you effectively concede all of the affirmative points, and you should lose by default.

Kritiks -

I'm not really a fan of kritiks (especially K-affs), but I will still vote on them. I personally believe that Ks are bad for debate because they help the neg effectively cheat by escaping their obligation to defend the status quo. That being said, I will still vote for you if you run a K so long as you genuinely beat the other team with it.

Theory -

I love theory. I think that it's great that debate is one of the few activities where what you do in that activity can actually change the rules of it. However, if you run a theory argument without backing it up well, I will still probably vote against you.

Conditionality -

I think that all counterplans should be run unconditionally because conditional counterplans are not accurate depictions of how laws work in the real world. Congress won't pass five conflicting laws and spend billions of dollars to solve one issue, they'll just pass one law. I also don't like conditional counterplans because they are unfair to the affirmative team. Why does the affirmative have to attack multiple plans when the negative only has to attack one?

Spreading -

I don't like spreading because I think that it is bad for debate on the whole, and may be hard to follow for other teams to follow, but I probably won't vote against you by default if you spread. Also, try not to spread in rebuttals.

Performance -

I think that performance is a very important part of any debate, which is why I tend to vote against spreading. I don't expect to hear the gettysburg address in a high school debate, but just try to put some emotion into what you say in-round.

Final Notes -

I am mostly a stock issues judge, but I am willing to vote on any argument, as long as it is presented and constructed well. Please be civil to your competitors. I understand that a debate may get very emotional at times, but that does not give you the right to treat the other team poorly. Please share evidence with your competitors (preferably through speechdrop.net) because it may be difficult to understand your arguments if you do not share evidence.

If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask them.

If you speak so fast I can’t understand, I’ll vote the other side.

I take notes rather than flow.

Resolve the main issues in the debate. Which argument you choose is less relevant to me than how you connect it to the issues of the debate.

evidence indictments might get me to remove something from voting consideration, but it won’t turn it to your side.

Cross closed vs open- Open is fine as long as both team members participate.

closed is fine.

I’ll assume it’s closed cross unless you specify BEFORE the debate begins.

I appreciate cleverness in your choice of words and arguments.

Introduce yourself before rounds.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.