Arr, ye scurvy landlubbers! Gather ‘round the campfire, fer I be spinnin’ ye a yarn 'bout high school debate, pirate-style. So hoist the Jolly Roger, sharpen yer cutlasses, and let’s weigh anchor on this here debate sea!

Title: “The Great Debate Booty Showdown”

Arr, me hearties! Welcome to theHigh School Debate Ship, where young buccaneers clash like thunderin’ cannons over matters grand and trivial. Our topic today: “Be it resolved that treasure maps be replaced with GPS coordinates.” Now, let’s set sail, savvy?

“Avast, ye scallywags! Listen well, for I say this: Treasure maps be as outdated as a barnacle-covered hull. GPS be the compass of the modern age! No more decipherin’ cryptic clues—just follow the blinking dot to yer booty. Arr, progress awaits!”

“Arr, hold yer horses, Corsair! Maps be the soul of adventure! GPS be but a soulless automaton. Where’s the romance in punchin’ numbers into a gadget? Give me parchment, ink, and a quill any day. X marks the spot, and me heart sings!”

“Blackbeard, ye cling to nostalgia like barnacles to a ship. What say ye to lost maps, faded ink, and squintin’ at tiny screens? GPS be precise as a surgeon’s blade!”

“Aye, Corsair, but what of the thrill? The wind in yer hair, the salt spray on yer face? GPS be cold as a dead fish. Maps be tales whispered by the sea herself!”

“Listen, ye landlubbers! GPS be efficient, but maps be magic. They tell stories of buried chests, ghostly pirates, and forbidden coves. Let’s not trade wonder for convenience!”

“Arr, Corsair, ye’ve a point, but maps be our legacy. They be ink-stained dreams, passed down from one generation to the next. GPS? Bah! Give me parchment or give me Davy Jones!”

“Debate judges, me hearties, weigh the scales. Will ye choose the cold precision of GPS or the salty romance of maps? The decision be yers. But remember, whether ye be Corsair or Blackbeard, we’re all pirates sailin’ the same debate seas.”

And there ye have it, me mateys! The Great Debate Booty Showdown—where words be the cannons, and ideas be the treasure. Now, raise yer tankards, sing a shanty, and may the best debater win!

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

4th year Varsity speaker at Shawnee Heights High School.

Pure gamesplayer judging style. Don't love topicality or Kritik, but if it is warranted and understandable, I'm cool with that. A solid CP or DA tickles my fancy.

Prefer Stock Issue arguments. If you win more stock issues, you win my vote.

Speed is fine, just be articulate and BREATHE. I'd prefer you spoke slowly and clearly than sound like you're in pain trying to spread.

If you are disrespectful or make any sort of personal attacks, you will lose (yes, this happens more than you'd think).

Overall, I am looking for clean, educational debate that provokes critical thinking between teams. Be nice, smile, have fun, and you will be fine.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

As of 04/27/2024, I have yet to judge any rounds on this particular topic. That having been said, I generally operate under the assumption that you, as debaters, will propose the political and philosophical foundations for the round during your first constructive speeches. I am open to most ideas, taking into account both context and decency. In other words, do not read something inherently abrasive, discriminatory, or flagrant in order to take a stance off the beaten path, or worse, in an attempt to simply win the round. I expect cordial cross-examinations and a general level of kindness throughout the debate. If any of the debaters in the round wish to claim some form of abuse committed by the other team, please structure your abuse arguments so that I can evaluate them accordingly within the context of the debate. I coached policy debate for almost three years, and I was a policy-debater for four. I am comfortable with most speeds, and I greatly appreciate a copy of speeches in-round. With respect to my ideas on debate, as I mentioned, I am fairly open-minded. I am sympathetic to creative arguments designed to fulfill the topic's spirit in the most charitable way possible, but I will vote on flow for major issues, such as but not limited to: Topicality, Solvency, Ks, and CP/DAs. Please, if you have any specific questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round begins, and I would be happy to answer.