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

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

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

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

she/her/hers

yes i want to be on the email chain->aryanadb8@gmail.com

former debater / current coach for OE

run what you like to run lole

everything is debatable to me hence lack of concrete debate opinions in this paradigm. i feel like debate has turned into debaters changing their entire strat to adhere to the arguments that the judge wants to hear which leads to boring and stale debates in the long run. i want y'all to have fun and be creative! (->as long as everyone feels safe and comfy in round and in the overall debate space ofc)

only three things i ask for the rounds i judge

1.) be clear pls!! clarity>speed!

2.) good args>lots of args if the two need to be mutually exclusive. i will defer from what i said earlier in paradigm for a sec: i am probably not the judge to go twenty off in front of. better debates have fleshed out and evolved args on each page instead of throwing a billion different arguments at the wall in the 1nc and seeing what sticks.

3.) be nice please! everyone is here at ungodly hours on a weekend. everyone is tired and hungry. being passive aggressive (or being actively aggressive lmao) during a round is so lame! having a massive ego and thinking you're better than everyone else at a tournament is so lame! if there is an actual reason you can't be cordial to your opponents in round then that is something to say to your judge, your coach or the tournament director.

Flay parent judge- adapt accordingly (don't spread)

Did forensics in high school

WSU '09

I majored in communication and taught public speaking for 5 years at the college level so good presentation and good etiquette is important to my ballot

I know the basis of a lot of policy oriented arguments on the circuit- but full explanation is key as always

DA's: great

CP's:great

on case: v v important

if you can't tell, my varsity debater child helped write this paradigm.

K's: I probably haven't read your literature but am up for the ideas behind kritiks. If it is necessary for a K to be ran in round it's in your best interest to run something easily digestible for an average parent judge with a lot of explanation on the link and what the alt does

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: owenwcrouch@gmail.com

Owen W. Crouch

He/Him

former debater at Olathe East

Tell me a dad joke before the round to let me know you read my paradigm :)

I Like Theory and Policy. I can handle a simpler K like Cap or Imperialism. I can handle speed but I prefer a more traditional debate style.

My biggest thing is that you need to be explaining arguments. You need to tell me why I need to vote on a given point. Especially on your voters for T, the framework for Ks, Impact calc, Etc. Tell me why I Care.

If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions about my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands.

As long as federalism DAs are not run, we will be okay.

Qualifications: I am a 4th year debater and I am highly active in debate and forensics. I have qualified for nationals 3 times in different forms of debate

Judging style:

• I will flow, so I know when you drop arguments, please do not say a team dropped an argument when you know they did not. (It is my biggest pet- peeve.)
• I will follow well so it is extremely important- even if you don't have evidence- give analyticals!! Well thought out and explained analyticals can be very helpful. I think it is very important for an educational debate, that serves a purpose to understand what you are talking about.
• use cross ex wisely.
• As for on- case arguments, solvency is so important, if you can prove the affirmative cannot solve for everything they say they solve for, you win.
• Too many people get caught up in topicality, it is the biggest time waster in a round so do not drop it- but do not waste your time.
• For off- case arguments DAs and CPs (in my opinions) are the most productive use of your time.
• Theory debate gets a thumbs up
• I also will not tolerate any kind of sexism, racism, or homophobia- I will immediately vote to the other team regardless of how good your arguments are, and I will report it to the tournament director. No one should feel like debate is not a safe place for all to express themselves and be educational.
• Good luck and have fun, debate is very important to the education of our youth and I am happy to judge!

Email: gabrielgelsheimer@gmail.com

Hello welcome to my paradigm! First let me explain my experience to give you insight on how I will judge this round. I'm currently a NDT debater for Missouri State, I did policy debate in high school for two years. I did youth court for 5 years and have over 300 community service hours. I was also the mock trial team team captain. I did forensics debate my freshman year and senior year. I loved congress debate, and world schools was pretty cool. Below is what I'll be focusing on.

1. Debating harms, actual on case is what I would love to focus, make sure your link story makes sense, write my ballot for me
2. My background screams CX, I love it, it simplifies the debate, and where people can shine, lead people down a trap and sting them in their next speech, strong CX questions is a big focus for me
3. If you cant spread then don’t try. Mumbling really fast isn’t debating. With that said I don’t mind judging a spreding debate at all just make sure your clear when you speak. If one team is lay and the other spreads the spreading team has to conform to the lay team, otherwise the dynamic would be crazy.
4. I lean tech over truth. If you tell me the sky is red and the other team drops its, the sky is red.

All and all best of luck to you all during this debate and please be respectful towards each other

ONW debate 2020 - 2022 -> KU Debate 2022 - Current

She/They

T/L: I am good with any argument. Just don't be problematic and/or rude

K Teams: On the affirmative we run a K aff and I have ran a soft left aff in the past, on the negative I primary run set col but am familiar with other Ks. Fw is pretty important and explaining the role of the ballot / role of the judge. Its good to explain why your model of debate is better than the one they are proposing.

Policy teams: I am not that familiar with pics, you can still run them but I will be learning during the round. If the purpose of aff / neg isn't laid out I default to "Does the aff make the world better than the squo?". I don't usually vote for condo unless there is clear in round abuse and its the majority of the 2ar. If there are dropped args you don't have to take a long time extending them, just 10 quick seconds to say something like "they dropped x... conceded, flows to us" and if it matters for other arguments go more into that then.

Don't be mean to your partner, good luck <3

Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.

Policy:

Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...

Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.

Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)

Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.

Forensics:

I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress

What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.

Overall:

The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

He/Him

I spend time thinking about communication and the way that this activity has shaped my life/who I am as a person.

I think judge instruction is important. In order to vote for you, I need claims backed by warrants and an articulation of how those warrants mean I vote AFF or NEG in a debate. If you tell me to read the evidence, I'll read the evidence. If you don't, I won't.

Graduated from Lawrence Free State in 2022, debated all 4 years (sophomore year DCI/ToC/faster debate, KDC/flay/lay debate junior and senior year), and found my forte with International Extemp. I am now an Assistant Coach for LFS.

Add me to the email chain: theezrajoseph@gmail.com .

I will flow.

Your best bet is treating me as a flay judge who likes smart arguments and clash.

If you have questions, please ask! I want to be here to help you and give comments to the best of my abilities, but I can't do that unless you ask questions. :)

Quinn Largent pronouns: ????? Let’s just go with They/Them for now

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 5/8/24)

Trad,LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

Tech > Truth. unless told to evaluate arguments diffrently.

I'm comfortable in any type of debate. I adapt to you not the other way around. Email me if anything doesn't make sense in the paradigm I'm horrible at typing.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have.

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you. (this is one of the few things I can't be convinced of otherwise)

Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, cops good, Inequality good. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add)

I’ll clap when the debate ends this event is draining and I know it’s performative but I always liked when judges clapped after my round so I’ll do the same. (If I’m not clapping I’m either thinking way to much or someone was a bad human)

TLDR:

Do what you want

there are no rules of debate just guidelines break as many as you want just have reason and win the debate on why you should and I'll vote for it. everything is always up for debate. (do not do this to novices or people that you are just leagues above speaks will be affected but won't change if u win or lose)

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not so I will vote on out-of-round issues as long as there is proof because I can't vote on just he said she said scenario.

Specifics for adapting in the round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

extend your arguments this means you have a claim and warrant and what that means for the round

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or whatever ur using.

I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

Speaks

30 - literally perfect i have zero things I would change (I don't think I'll give these out like ever)

29.5+ - go win the tourney

29+ - go break

28.5 - average

below this is just below average for the tourney

yes speaks change depending on skill of tourney (the 30 doesnt)

If i can tell you who won ask me questions.

----- Plan AFFs -----

I have experience reading soft-left AFFs (native water rights on water), big stick AFFs (OCOs on NATO FJG on Fiscal redistribution), and both (UBI on Fiscal redistribution)

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues). There is zero risk of case, especially with how bad plan texts are getting.

JUST SAYING WORDS FROM THE RESOLUTION IS NOT A PLAN TEXT. ur plan text should tell me what the aff is and does. i wont auto vote for it but vaugness is a real argument. (this is amplified even harder after the fiscal topic because holy christ)

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff. (The burden of explanation does not change no matter what happened in the round idc how little they have responded)

----- K AFFs -----

have experience reading them (deluze queer aff on nato and set col/ablism on fiscal redistrubution).

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw. Fairness is an IL. just yelling the round is unfair means nothing to me what does it being unfair mean does it means its harder for you to win if so tell me why. --- i think a lot of aff and neg teams don't do enough turns case analysis against both sides. doing that will make my ballot a lot less frustrating.

how negs should go for FW: it should have impacts based on actions of the round exaberated by what the spefic sytle of the aff or lit basis of the aff does to debate or the round. Good TVA is sick. if identity related explain how being untopical affects that said identity. more spec FW is the more likley i might like voting on it.

ROB/ROJ: these are diffrent to me they arent the same(If the round makes them the same tho ill evaulate it as such) ROB means what my ballot should be doing when i vote. ROJ is how i weigh and view the round that is taking place

KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

Neg teams reads counterplans and DAs there normally are pretty good against some k affs

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently (T – Article V against most NATO AFFs). (T - Prexisting/T - Redistrubutiuon against all Fiscal redistrubution Affs)

You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appresciated

i default to competing interps.

Affs extned your actual aff in the 2ar when awnsering T just wining your case is topical doesnt win you the round you still need to solve an impact. i will vote neg on presumption if the 2ar is just 5 minutes of you saying u are topical

Its your burden to prove that the aff is topical and a good idea just winning its topical doesnt mean you win the aff is a good idea.

----- CPs -----

(if sending counterplan docs dont title it CP please god i dont need that being saved in my computer)

Condo: ill vote if u win it. i went for it a lot senior year

Neg: have a net benefit.

ill be honest i ran a counterplan very few times and the times i went for it is even less. ill probably think about it very similary to a alt on a K because thats something im used to

Judge kick: TBH never done this in a round never ran against it and tbh I think its bad because it means I'm making a strategic decision for the negative for them. i mean if the neg tells me to judge kick ig I will unless the aff tells me not to for some reason.

IDK WHAT JUDGE KICK IS THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF CONDO MEANS LIKE THAT DOESNT HAVE A WARRANT HOW IS IT LOGICAL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bads. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team

----- DAs -----

NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly link paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.

------ Ks -----

More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.

I am decently well versed in K literature. I have read biopower, capitalism, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, statecrafting, decolozation, Setller colonialism,anthro and queer theory. However, it seems that the way authors are read in debate varies from the source material, and from round-to-round, so explain your theory the way you want me to understand it in the context of the round.

Link: after doing K debate a while good K teams will devolpe more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independent reject teams/links because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained in how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA

If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K

------ Hot Takes -----

i know have takes about debate and i want yall to have a vision in my mind and how i see debate.

--- Textual Comp is bad i think if it was the one standard is that we say Blank instead of Blank prolly kills debate if the word changes something about the function that makes more sense. functional competion is the better option ill vote on textual comp if won i just wont be happy about it

--- if u have a multi plan counter plan and u can kick certain parts of the counterplan that is not 1 condo that is how many diffrent combanations that you can make by kicking how many parts and not kicking some ETC.

--- how generic the 1nc doesnt matter to me as long as it gets explained in the block or CX.

LD paradigm

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: tech > truth when I began debate I thought these were bad and hated them. now i realize teams should just win the debate against them on 1 of two levels.

Theory: they shouldn't be in debate and why

Debate them: why the theory is untrue bad etc.

PFD paradigm

just debate ill flow and ill vote on offense. i don't really see how this is much different then policy minus a few things. Tech>truth ill vote on anything

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i want put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again as a prewarning sorry.

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

once again sorry.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Once again sorry

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

Updated January 2023.

Yes I want to see your docs, so include me on the email chain (if you’re using one and not just doing speechdrop which is easier IMO). savannahlegler@gmail.com

I flow on my laptop on an excel sheet so there will be significant typing

My pronouns are they/them

Policy paradigm

I recommend reading this whole thing but I know it's long so TLDR; DO NOT SPREAD I will not flow it, likes Ks and K affs but you should understand the lit and IMO they can be abusive if you're just trying to confuse the other team, prefs specific (not generic) DAs, weird CPs can be abusive, T is meh (mostly because people don't run it right), other theory is ok. Framework debates will be prioritized over my personal preferences mostly. I don’t tolerate harassment/abuse of any kind, have warranted args, don’t clip cards, flow every speech in the round. Ethics philosopher cares about ethics so be ethical please. If you need to stop the round because of mental or physical health reasons, just tell me, I've been there

Background

I did policy all four years of high school at Olathe Northwest and have coached there for two years. I am a philosophy and psychology major at KU with a minor in women, gender, and sexuality studies. My favored branches of philosophy are ethics, political, and metaphysics and I’m specializing in abnormal psychology. I am familiar with a lot of theory as a result of my majors and experience, but I do have trouble remembering exact details like authors. I catch on quickly to new theoretical arguments and I thoroughly enjoy k debate. I’m not very familiar with the older style of debate (plan planks and contentions).

Truth informs tech. I’m not going to be voting on warrantless arguments or blatant untruths, that’s an abusive way to try and win the round and I think judge intervention is necessary. I think this applies most frequently to theory blocks, since a lot of times there isn’t an established internal link between the structural harms you’re citing (eg. neg block side skew) and the proposed solution (eg. aff sets framework). If you establish that internal link, it should be fine. My logic here is that you wouldn’t expect me to vote on a DA without an internal link, so why would you do that with theory? Additionally, I’m a strong believer that technical nonresponses to unreasonable arguments don’t outweigh winning substantive arguments and, because debate is about clash and education and discussion, I will always prefer to see discussion of important topics rather than arguments that are just there as distractions.

Overall, explain the things you’re saying because I’m not going to vote on an argument you don’t actually make (but I also won’t vote on warrantless args).

I think the idea that debate is a game and the goal is to win is extremely harmful. Just trying to dump cards on your opponent to make them slip up and not respond to something is slimy, same with running stuff and banking on the fact that the other team just won't understand what you're arguing. You're not helping yourself get better at analysis and argumentation by avoiding clash to win on technicalities and misunderstandings. I view debate as a space to have conversations and expand knowledge bases, a place for high schoolers to engage in political philosophy, and that requires everyone understanding what's going on and everyone operating fairly. Winning is nice, but unethical strategy in the name of winning is a major problem in debate. If this comes up as a meta argument in round, know I will not buy your debate as a game good theory, I simply won't budge on this one area.

Evidence

Don’t clip. It’s pretty simple to say “cut the card there” and send out a marked copy once your speech is done (I recommend spamming tab on your laptop to mark where you stopped because it can be easily done mid speech and makes sure your marked doc is correct and sent in a timely manner after your speech). I realize that, especially since I’m asking you not to spread, that you’re going to need to cut things off, but just take the two seconds to make me aware of it so I don’t have to get you disqualified for clipping (I really don’t want to have to do that). If your evidence is fraudulent or altered in any way, I will probably find out, and it will cost you the round and maybe the tournament, and I’ll chat with your coach about it. Just don’t do it, there’s plenty of evidence out there and it’s unethical to be making your own.

Aff burden

Aff has the burden to relate to the resolution, but this doesn’t exclude k affs. Obviously, the easiest way to do this is to do a policy aff, but that’s not always what people go with. Relating to the res in an abstract way is valid if you can explain that. Be prepared to defend why your approach is best for debate and why your take on the resolution is necessary. If the debate ends and I’m unclear what an aff ballot means, I’ll vote neg on presumption.

Neg burden

A neg ballot is usually whatever you pull through to the 2NR. If you want to argue judge kick for a CP to also have the squo as an option, you’re going to have to do some theory lifting in order to get me there because I lean toward multiple worlds existing on the neg ballot being inherently abusive. Explain why it’s not. K alts and CPs are functionally the same to me, the difference is in the complexity, so just make sure your alt and what it means for the ballot is clear. If you're running a k with no alt you're gonna have to explain why you don't need one.

Speaking

Do not spread. I will not flow your arguments if I cannot understand them. I have an auditory processing disorder. You don't need to spread to win. I get that you may find it annoying, but you need to be able to adapt to judge preferences and this is what I’m asking of you. I’m asking for speech docs for accessibility and to monitor for clipping, not to fill in gaps on my flow. You have to make connections and read off the args for them to get on there.

Keep track of what you read and what you don’t read and where you’re marking cards. Sending impossibly long speech docs (like whole camp files) that you know are more than you can read is bad practice. Essentially, trying to trick your opponent/the judge into believing you read a card you didn’t read is extremely unethical and over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you. Explicitly falsely claiming to have read a card in a previous speech is a round loss. You should be flowing your own speeches to avoid this happening.

Argument choices

You need to be running full arguments in your speeches. Starting a DA or T in one speech and saving the impact/voters for the block is abusive and not having those things at all means that you've wasted your own time because I can't vote on that argument. DAs need uniqueness, a link, and an impact (sometimes and an internal link). T needs an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters.

I love kritiks. This is probably not surprising as a philosophy major, and I do a lot of theory in my classes (I don’t just take major related classes so I’m familiar with economic oriented theory as well). I probably won’t have read exactly what you’re reading, but I’m familiar with a wide range of concepts and am comfortable with my ability to understand complicated arguments. The stuff I’m most familiar with is queer theory, biopower, settler colonialism, afro-pessimism, feminism, and anything relating to ethics. However, this is not a freebee to just run something because you think it'll confuse the other team. Philosophical discussions go both ways and I'm going to like your K a lot more if you're being diplomatic and helping the other team get your point so they can actually respond. In K debates you should be focusing on having a productive, fair philosophical debate with your opponent and that gets really muddled when all anyone cares about is the W. A fair warning about Ks, I will probably understand your lit better than you do, 9 times out of 10 this is the case, and this means I will notice if you don't understand the argument you're running, so best to run Ks you're comfortable with and not just something you pulled from open ev just for this round.

I will vote on topicality, but I think running it when you know an aff is topical is tacky (in a roll my eyes kind of way not a vote you down kind of way). However, I get that sometimes you don’t have anything else to run because you’re not a k team. Reasonability to me is more about there being multiple acceptable interpretations of a word, so if you’re not meeting any definition in the round, you’re probably not reasonably topical. I’m less lenient to obscure policy affs than to k affs on t and that’s a personal preference that you should be aware of (this is based on how useful I think each are to debate; the former not at all and the latter extremely). I’m probably not going to buy into t isn’t apriori to my decision but if you think you can convince me, go for it by all means. You don’t need 5 minutes of t in the 2NR for it to be convincing, but sometimes you need that five minutes to cover everything that’s happened on the t flow, so play it by ear. I don’t really enjoy t debates, they get really reductive a lot of times because it devolves into semantics for semantics' sake. I know some people are really into them, but I personally think there’s more important discussions to be had and throwaway t args are a waste of time. However, recall that I will vote on t because it is important.

DAs and CPs aren’t super interesting unless you have something that’s not generic. You can win on them, like everything, but I find big stick, low probability impacts dull and they’re one of my least favorite parts of debate. Politics DAs need to be updated to be relevant and even then, they’re a lot of speculation and fear mongering so be careful how you’re arguing. CPs are a whole can of worms and can easily be annoying to judge and abusive to the aff. PICs are iffy for me since the aff isn’t just coming up with the best possible plan, it’s the best possible plan and fitting in the resolution, but if you can argue theory for them then, as with most things, be my guest.

I prefer structural impacts because big stick impacts feel like sensationalized news headlines IMO, but it's not a hard preference in any way.

Theory is fun but needs to be clear and have internal links, as stated above. I don’t really have much more to say than don’t use theory as a time waster because it usually means it’s argued poorly, doesn’t apply, and makes you look bad.

A lot of people assume they’re winning every flow, but you’re probably not, so I recommend using the “even if” layering of argumentation in rebuttals to have flows interact with each other. Best to not assume you’re winning and built contingencies into your speeches for me.

Flowing

You should be flowing, even if it’s from the speech doc for accessibility reasons (another reason why marked copies are important, I did this all the time). If you respond to arguments that weren’t presented, your speaks will suffer for it, and obviously, not responding to a core argument because you weren’t flowing could cost you the round.

Apparently, y’all have decided prewritten overviews are the new hip thing. It doesn’t sound like a great idea to me, mostly because overviews should be short summaries of what you’re extending in the speech in the context of the current round (exception to this is aff case extensions, go ahead and prewrite those to your heart’s content). Every round shakes out different, so you should be adapting your extensions to what’s going on in front of the judge. Line by lines are very nice but I recognize they require a lot of organization. It’s usually better to go through each individual argument rather than doing each flow as an argument, since a lot of detail can be lost. Prewritten overviews that aren’t for unaddressed, pure extensions will be affecting your speaks.

Misc

I’m not going to tolerate any harassment, abuse, insulting, or exclusion in rounds (this is for extreme cases, which do happen, unfortunately). As someone who has experienced those things and been frustrated by judge apathy in the name of intervention philosophy, the debate space has to be accessible and equitable for everyone who is participating and that is the most a priori thing in a round. If someone is having a breakdown or is uncomfortable in ways I can’t visibly recognize, let me know and we can take a break. Your mental health and sense of belonging in the debate space is the most important thing to me and I won’t let other people compromise that for you. I will not tolerate violent, bigoted rhetoric being used in round. I’ve had people say I shouldn’t be allowed to participate in debate, to vote, or to make my own decisions because of aspects of my identity and I will absolutely not allow you to make these arguments. I am hard zero tolerance about this. You do not have the right to make the debate space unsafe.

Disclosure should be reciprocal in order to be ethical. If you wiki mined the aff’s case, you should disclose negative positions. In rounds where there’s a disagreement about disclosure, it’s unlikely to be the topic of my RFD, but I will probably have some criticism if there’s clear unfairness. Hold yourselves accountable for ethical practices.

The only time I will reject a team instead of an argument is on abuse/harassment/exclusion.

Current Head Coach at Lansing High School in Kansas, Previously Head Coach at Buhler High School in Kansas (traditional-style debate 4A school). I judge rounds regularly, and have for the last 10 years.
I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics @ Eudora High

General Things

Speed - clarity is important, Im more on the slow end of fast debate. Add me to the email chain and I can usually keep up ok. larissa.maranell@usd469.net

FYI: I have a degree in Biology, this is included b/c my threshold for answering crap science args is low. Im not gonna do the work for the opponent but they wont need to do much. Also bad logic hurts your ethos.

In Policy Rounds -

I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.

Kritiks: I enjoy them but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, If you cant make sure your opponent understands the K its not productive to the round, to you, or to anyone. You also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it. (TLDR- don't be lazy and I will weigh it)

I love a good T debate :)

In LD Rounds -

Value and Value Criterion are not just buzzwords, they are central to the LD form of debate, if you read them just to move on to your policy framework that isn't the point.

In PFD Rounds -

PFD is not Policy.

Make sure you give me framework in the 1st speech, Judge instruction is key.

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. I recommend that the fastest debaters slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Substantively, there are no absolute deal-breakers for me, but I do have some commitments from which I will depart only if compelled to do so by persuasive or unrefuted argument: cases should be topical (unless you present compelling reasons why they need not be); teams should engage in productive clash; and debaters must operate in good faith. If I'm not successfully placed in a paradigm in-round, I will default to a hybrid policy-maker/rules framework. Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on this issue, i don't evaluate the rest of the Aff. Otherwise, I will assess the round as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Counterplans. I would prefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or axiom, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. If you choose to read a K, you must explain it in detail and offer a clear, and compelling, Alt. I disfavor K Affs; I believe your job as the affirmative is to represent the resolution. K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot; I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that, as a default policy guy, that's hard to do with me.

Share the documents w/ me: adamcruzperrone@gmail.com

Do your own thing.

Tech > Truth.

Give me good voters.

The aff has the burden of proof unless you convince me otherwise.

Speed is fine.

I judge more on policy than stock.

I like a good debate so don't spread your opp out of the round, that is not the goal.

Speed- moderate is good. If I put down my pen (yes, I am old school that way) you are going too fast. I am old(er) and my hearing isn't what it used to be.

Road maps are important, tell me where you are going and where I should be putting your arguments.

I debated in high school and have judge many rounds since so this isn't my first rodeo.

Paradigm for Anish Srivastava:

Email chains acceptable, anishsrivastavaks@gmail.com

Relevant Background:

Debate at ON from 2016-2020 (I did DCI like twice and hated it, KDC forever)

Forensics at ON from 2016-2020 (Congress [nationals breaks], IX/DX [nationals], IMP2 [state])

For the Negative:

Topicality is not a real thing. Running it in an invitational is nearly a guaranteed loss. Running T in Regionals/State is more acceptable but it MUST be carried to the 2NR. If it isn't it is a loss.

Because of how much I hate Topicality I tend to accept more generic links for DA's

For Both teams:

I am a mix between Stock Issues and Tabula Rasa (mostly because I haven't done this in years).

Notes:

Ask me anything, I am an open book while judging

I have run 1K (Cap I think) one time, If you run a K I don't know what alts, agents, SetCol is.

I haven't done debate in years, so I can't catch your spreading. If I can't hear it I won't flow it.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.