Hello! I debated at Shawnee Mission South for all four years of high school (2016-2019 topics), and I did forensics for two years. I competed in Mock Trial for two years at Washburn University, and I'm now a 1L at Washburn Law. If you want to include me in an email chain, please use this email address: eqjdb8@gmail.com. Please keep in mind that, while I do have debate experience, I have not debated since the 2019-2020 season. My technical knowledge may be a bit rusty. : )

General Notes

As a general rule, be respectful. If someone has preferred pronouns, please use those pronouns. If you do not feel comfortable sharing your pronouns, then you don't have to. To make things simpler, on the ballot, I will refer to each speaker by position (i.e., 1A, 2A, 1N, 2N) or by speech.

I will, for the most part, consider voting and speakers separately. In my opinion, debate is about both substance and performance. Even if you are not the most eloquent speaker, I may still find your arguments to be more substantive, or vice versa. On the ballot, I may leave comments about your public speaking skills, but these do not influence how I vote unless it affected my ability to understand your arguments. (Also, do note that, in the interest of avoiding a low point win, I try not to award the losing team better cumulative speaker ranks than the winning team.)

I prefer closed CX, but I'm willing to listen to open CX if both teams would rather do that. The only thing I would caution against is having just one debater asking and answering the majority of questions on behalf of both partners. To me, CX is a great time to show how well you know your evidence and demonstrate that you're not just reading pre-prepared blocks. If you have to rely on your partner to answer everything/don't trust your partner to be able to answer things, then something is wrong.

I try to flow the rounds to the best of my ability, but this also means that you should have clear organization and structure in your speeches. This can include signposting when switching arguments, saying "and" or something equivalent before a new card, or labeling your cards as A, B, C, etc. If I can't tell that you're reading a new piece of evidence, I may not flow it as such. A little organization goes a long way.

Voting (Win/Loss)

I will try to vote according to the framework established in the round, within reason. So, if the only framing read is extinction first, then I'll vote based on the worst extinction impacts. If no framing is read in round, then my default order of priority is probability, then magnitude, then timeframe. I like hearing impact calculus and when you talk about things in cards beyond just the tagline. On that note, the Aff winning impact calculus is less important if they can't win that they solve. Similarly, the Neg winning impact calculus is less important if they can't win that the plan links to the DA or the turn.

I am not a fan of spreading because it can be difficult to understand and keep up with. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't take those statements into consideration when voting. I'm not well read on Ks either, so you probably shouldn't read one in front of me. (On a similar note, it's also hard for me to vote Aff if you don't have a plan text. If that sounds like your Aff, please reconsider running it in front of me, or be very thorough in explaining why I should still vote for you.)

If you run T, it should be on a blatantly untopical Aff, or you need to explain the violation and standards very well. I generally don't approve of T arguments being read as a way to waste time, but I understand that there are some rounds where you really don't have anything else to argue. I default to competing interpretations, but I can be swayed toward reasonability instead. Don't forget your standards and voters.

I like counterplans; I think they're great! However, I like them more when they do something different from the plan action. If you read a plan-inclusive CP (or PIC), you need to clearly explain why your addition to or tweaking of the Aff's plan is both necessary and an improvement over just the plan by itself. I don't have any strong opinions on conditionality or perms, so it's up to you to convince me how I should feel about those in round.

When you read evidence, you need to read more than just the tags and authors. That is just making a claim, not actually explaining or proving the argument. If you don't read the actual evidence or substance of the card, I won't flow the card or take that claim into consideration, unless you read the card's contents later or re-introduce the claim as an analytic argument.

If you want to call out an opponent for saying something you think or know is false, then you should provide a source for your fact check, even if you don't have a card on hand for it. The only exception would be if the correction is common knowledge. I will not automatically assume that you are correct just because you say your opponent is wrong.

New arguments in the 2AC and 2NC are fair game, unless you can convince me in round that they shouldn't be allowed. They are constructive speeches for a reason. However, I don't think the 1NR should have any new arguments, since it's a rebuttal. I'm not likely to budge on this point, since the Neg team has an entire 8 minute 2NC that they can introduce the new argument in. If I hear a new argument in the 1NR, I won't flow it.

The 2NR and the 2AR should not have any new cards being read (nor any new arguments, but that should go without saying); however, new cards in the 1AR to respond to new cards or new arguments in the Neg Block are okay. If new cards are read in the 2NR or 2AR, I will not flow them. If you feel that the argument must be made, then try to make it an analytic argument and connect it to a previous argument from the round.

Speaker Points/Rank

These are some easy ways to lose or gain speaker points with me.

- You will lose speaker points if you are unnecessarily rude or hostile to the opposing team.

- You will lose speaker points if you swear in round and it's not a direct quote from a card. (Remember, you are still a representative of your school when debating, so you should remain professional.)

- You will lose speaker points if I can't understand what you're saying.

- You will lose speaker points if you can't ask and/or answer questions in CX.

- You will lose speaker points if you continually interrupt or try to talk over the other competitor in CX (or your partner in open CX).

- You will lose speaker points if you look only at your computer/notes the entire time. (Eye contact is a good communication strategy, though not in excessive amounts.)

- You will lose speaker points if your delivery is consistently monotone.

- You will lose speaker points if you read new cards or bring up new arguments in the 2NR/2AR.

+ You will gain speaker points if you have an organized structure in your speeches.

+ You will gain speaker points if you appropriately vary your tone, volume, and inflections to emphasize important points.

+ You will gain speaker points if you can deliver an impromptu rebuttal (i.e., not reading off a script, though you can still refer to your notes).

+ You will gain speaker points if you sound confident in what you are saying.

+ You will gain speaker points if you directly respond to the opposing team's specific arguments.

I feel most engaged when listening to speakers who speak clearly and from memory rather than just speed reading a case. Eye contact is also important. Having strong convictions while still being respectful to the other team is also quite a talent.

Updated 12/16/2022:

Add me to the chain - jspencer.js17@gmail.com

I'm comfortable with speed, but slow down on analytics.

I'm a junior at KU who debated four years at Shawnee Mission South.

Obviously don't cheat! I'll dock speaker points you if you egregiously steal prep or something.

DAs-

DAs are fine obviously, be sure to explain any turns with clear signposting.

CPs-

Be sure to explain why the perm works, not just say "Perm do both" and move on.

Ks-

Ks are fine, just be sure to explain why they're pertinent to the debate and why the alt should be preferred.

T-

I freaking LOVE T. Run it all the time you can. T as a time sink is lame though, make sure it's actually well thought out. Just be sure to extend all parts of each T block and explain to me why I should vote for your T.

Case-

Not really sure why I'm putting this here. Just be sure to extend case args throughout the rebuttals. I won't shadow extend for you unless the other team dropped it.

Overall-

I'm a very vanilla judge. If you can convince me why an argument is important, I'll consider it. I love smart analytics, just explain why they work in the context of the round. Also be sure to spend time explaining why a piece of evidence works against the opposing case.

I believe in you all!! Good luck out there!

4 years of debate (KDC) at Lansing High (2017-2021)

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (2021– current)

Assistant Coaching at Lansing High School

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've learned that as I judge more the more I realize I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals.

Speed–I'm cool with it if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. People never slow down on analytics so imma just start clearing folks if I cant understand what your saying without the doc. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

LD– All of the stuff below applies if you wanna read a plan and have a policy debate do it idc its your debate have fun!

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth. The only time I'll use truth as a means of decision making is to break a tie in an argument which usually will only happen if the debate is very messy.

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should point that out.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good unless the neg is just trying to time suck by reading like 5 CP's and then just going for whichever you cant get to in time

DA's: I have quite a bit of experience with these but not a lot to say on them, I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story and focus on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 5 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate– I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW– I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity – Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK– uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

When it comes to debating, My most important thing is to make sure the debaters understand the arguments that they are presenting instead of Just reading off card. Especially for Novices. If you can't understand what a card says, And summarize it briefly in your own words, I would much rather prefer that you Read a different card.

I enjoy the persuasive aspect of debate far more than I do the technical aspect. Discussion is more than just providing cards and answering questions. It's crafting a very clear narrative. Make it as obvious as you possibly can. If i have to the thinking for myself, i might come to a conclusion you dont want me to

Clash is also something that I do find important. Instead of reading past eachother, I would rather atleast most of the conversation stay on the course of talking back and forth about specific cards.

Fairness args such as Theory, Topicality, And K's are alright with me, but argumentation of how those should operate is something that we should do In the round.

Although I have my own opinions formed, I try to do as little thinking for myself. Debate is about being persuasive. Take the time to lead me to the conclusion you want me to reach.

If you say the word "Mold" or "trumpet" once through out your speech, I'll know you actually read my paradigm and respect you more for taking the time to read this, since I did type it all!

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.

I debated in the late 1990s in all 4 years of High School and a bit during College. I have since judged at all levels of High School policy debate, LD, and student congress.

What I do not like:

Excessive speed that makes the debate impossible to interpret, ultimately this is a SPEECH competition.

Theory debate with no evidence.

Extensive counterplan debates, keep it simple and allow the Aff to set the tone.

Reading evidence which doesn't say what the tag/head says. (But it's up to the other team to make that observation, I'm a judge not a party to the debate.)

Arguments with no place to flow them, if you make a argument the debate will be cleaner if you tell everyone where to flow that arguments!

What I like:

A ROAD MAP and then following said road map.

Topic-centered debate.

Real-world application.

People who are kind but assertive.

Things to Note:

Prep time starts when the opposing teams speech ends, not when you say it does.

If you want to share electronically, that time to mess wirh technology is part of your prep. (Provided its allowed in the tournament.)

If there isn't a time keeper, I would appreciate you calling out speech time/length for your own speech at the end. ("... I'm now open for CX, 6 minutes 34 seconds.")

I am a (grand)parent judge, so please go slow and make sure to explain your points, so I have a better understanding of the points you're making :)

My granddaughter is a K debater, so I have more knowledge about K's

I got a brief run over some of the novice AFF's, but please still make sure to explain what you're reading

Disclosure

Add me to the chain - jackshaw.debate@gmail.com

Please include the name of the tournament, the teams debating, and the round number in the header of the email.

Email chain > Speechdrop > File share > Google Drive > Flashdrive > Paper >>>>> "We don't disclose"

About Me

Shawnee Mission South 2022, University of Kansas 2026

Pronouns are He/Him/His, but I'm comfortable with any.

I have experience in policy debate on both the Kansas and national circuits as well as LD debate, IX, and IMP2 on the Kansas circuit.

TLDR

Do what you want*. Win the debate from a technical standpoint on the flow to win the debate.

*I will not vote on outright problematic args like racism good, homophobia good, abelism good, etc. and "suffering is inevitable so we should all end ourselves".

If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or otherwise my thoughts about debate, feel free to ask me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on anything* you tell me to using an offense-defense paradigm.

An argument is comprised of a claim and at least one supporting warrant. For me to evaluate and argument, and for you to win an argument, it needs more than just an assertion without backing.

Tech informs truth every time. Truth has value but technically winning an argument comes first and is the most objective way to evaluate a debate.

Absent a procedural reason for judge intervention, I will evaluate the debate starting with key framing issues and judge instruction, then often the impact level and impact comparison, then the rest of each side's extended arguments carried through their last rebuttals.

I evaluate the round while being a blank of a slate as possible. While I do have opinions about debate and arguments, I have no real overwhelming ideological predispositions or biases, so don't stress about conforming to whatever you perceive my style to be.

I will evaluate evidence the way it is spun in the round first. I will read over relevant and especially flagged evidence before my final evaluation. If you think it is pertinent, ask me if I want a card doc. I probably will.

There’s no need to call me judge. Call me whatever you see fit instead; just “Jack” is fine. Or just avoid personally addressing me.

If I'm not reacting to what you say with any emotion, it's because I'm trying not to, as I want to evaluate arguments as a spectator without being a distraction or a real-time influence on what is being said.

Procedural Notes

Both teams should disclose a reasonable period before the round. I will not hesitate to vote on properly executed disclosure theory.

Academic ethics violations are bad. To avoid this becoming an issue, be clear where you mark cards and be ready to send a marked copy if it is requested of you.

You can insert perm texts and short rehighlightings, but read your rehighlighting if it's more than a few words.

Speak as fast as you want so long as you are clear. I’ll give two "clear"s if you are not clear. If the problem continues after that, I'll flow what I catch and miss what I don't.

Sending analytics is cool and can boost speaks.

Time yourselves, including CX and prep.

I don’t really care what you do with your CX time; I think of it like a speech that I mostly don't flow. Asking your opponents questions is good and can help speaks and ethos, but if you want to use CX as prep time, I won't stop you.

I always default to open CX, but I am fine if all of the competitors agree to closed.

Speed is good and preferred if you can read clearly and if there is no ability-based opposition in the round, but you'll be better off speaking in a style you are comfortable in front of me with rather than one you are not, especially for rounds with a tricky panel.

Speaks will reflect the quality of debating done, though difficulty of the tournament's pool will scale all of my point assignments. I am open to using speaker points as objects to be discussed in the round as a form of solvency or praxis if you can win it, but I lean towards using the ballot, including speaks, as I see fit rather than as praxis for debaters.

If I can give an oral RFD, I will. I will be as efficient and direct as possible and will share the reason for my decision as well as broad comments for both sides with more specific comments being left to the ballot, as I respect the competitors' time. With that being said, I am always open to questions and can elaborate as much as time allows me to. Feel free to email me after round if you have any questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.

Online Debate

If my camera isn't on, assume I'm not there unless I say otherwise.

Please turn your cameras on if you are able and feel comfortable doing so.

I understand and empathize with tech issues, so just keep us updated as best you can on resolving them as they arise. If a tournament has tech time allotted, let us know clearly (if possible) if/when you need to use it.

I will likely have some good headphones to listen to you with, but I may still miss something if you cut out or are inaudible, so play it on the safe side and prioritize clarity over speed.

Mute if you aren’t speaking, especially if there’s background noise. We all should be able to hear the speaker as best as possible without external distractions.

Case

I like to know what I’m voting for, so be clear about what signing my ballot for you entails and affirms.

You don't need a plan to have an advocacy, but you should at least have an advocacy.

Kritiks

I'm partial to letting the aff at least weigh their impacts on FW.

As with evaluating an aff's advocacy, make sure you tell me what I’m voting for when I vote neg for the alt, whether that be “reject the aff” or a fundamentally new model of society or anything in between or beyond.

Arguments centered around identity should appropriately reflect the debaters advocating for them. I am all good with those arguments in a vacuum and by no means would I force someone to justify their identity, but this is something to keep in mind when making that personal and strategic choice in front of me.

Disadvantages

Intrensicness is bad and my threshold for voting for this argument is very high.

Counterplans

All counterplans will be evaluated as legitimate until the aff wins otherwise.

Judge kick is good when applicable. If the neg can win that condo is good, I will default to judge-kicking a counterplan unless the aff can win otherwise. However, if a counterplan is in the 2NR, I will flip presumption to the aff unless the neg can win otherwise.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

RVIs aren’t real at least for affs with plans.

On the question of framework / T USFG, I consider myself somewhat aff-leaning, but I won't hack for the aff by any means.

Theory

My reject the team threshold is high but my reject arg threshold is lower.

Don't spread through your analytics at max speed if you want me to catch them.

I generally like to flow non-arg-specific theory like condo on a separate flow to keep it clean, so make sure to note where theory is on your roadmaps.

PerfCon is oftentimes more of an internal link to condo than an independent voter, but I guess I can vote on it if you want me to.

For an ethics violation, I need to have clear and definitive proof of the abuse occurring as well as a clear willingness to stake the round on it before I can consider pulling the trigger. However, at the point at which abuse has clearly occurred, I am partial to dropping the team. If I agree with the violation, then the violating team gets dropped with minimum speaks and the other team gets max speaks. If I do not agree with the violation, it's the inverse.

Lincoln-Douglas

Traditional > Kritikal > Philosophy > Theory > Tricks

I debate on the Kansas circuit, so I've really only been exposed to conservative/traditional LD, though I am confident in my ability to adapt based on my policy knowledge.

I default to organizing the debate by flowing definitions and burdens, values, criterions, aff contentions, and neg contentions on their own respective pages.

Definitions > Value > Criterion > Contentions

Shawnee Mission South 21'

justin.a.tran07@gmail.com

Last update: 12/16/23 - I have judged a few rounds on the Economic Inequality topic, but I am still not familiar with everything so please articulate your arguments as much as possible and try to limit throwing around acronyms.

General:

---Disclosure is good.

---Clipping is cheating and I will give you bad speaks.

---Don't steal prep.

---A dropped argument is a true argument.

---I am okay with speed as long as you're clear and signpost tags/analytics.

---ASPEC and similar arguments aren't good but the aff still needs to answer them.

---Don't be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Ableist, etc. I will vote you down. Debate should always be an inclusive space where everyone feels comfortable.

---Feel free to email me about RFD's, questions, or concerns

TL:DR: Read whatever you like, I think any style or argument can win. I am not very familiar with K-affs and most K literature so please try to explain things to me and why they matter/what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. Debate is a game unless proven otherwise.

Speaker Points: Clarity (Especially in online debate) and smart arguments make your speaks increase, the opposite makes them decrease. Clipping = 0 (One warning). Make jokes at your leisure, speaker points will go up or down depending on the quality.

Thoughts about arguments:

Affs: Read a plan or don’t. Key things I want to see are impact calc, framing, and articulating what your plan/advocacy does. Use the aff as a tool on other flows and contextualize it to the negative's arguments.

K-Affs: I view this more than any other argument as an offense-defense paradigm because it’s the only way that makes sense. You need offense as well as defense on why your world is better. Detailed overviews about what the aff does boost speaks and makes it easier for me to evaluate.

Case: Clash, warrants, evidence comparison, author indicts, source indicts, smart analytics. Read more than just impact defense.

DAs:

---Generic links are fine, just contextualize it

---Do the impact calc so you can weigh the DA

---DA O/W and turns case goes a long way, same with case O/W and turns the DA

CPs:

---Any CP is fine until proven otherwise.

---Consult CPs, Delay CP's, and Process CPs are probably cheating and I will have a low threshold rejecting the argument.

---Condo debate should be condo is good/bad, not sure there's a "good" number of conditional CPs.

---Dispositionality is real.

---As with T debates, Condo is an offense-defense debate. Extend your interp, don’t drop the other team's interp, you need offensive reasons and defensive reasons.

---PICs are fine.

---Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc.

---Perms aren't advocacies, they are tests of competition.

---Impact out perm theory, I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory.

Ks: I'm not versed in K literature and am not particularly the best for judging these types of arguments. That being said, explain and warrant everything you say and I'll do my best to evaluate it. The only K's I'm more familiar with is cap and neoliberalism, please give a good alt. I don't have a lot of experience watching K debates but I know I will be a little bit sad if you read anthro, ballot K's, or certain author name K's (Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.) and will be persuaded toward arguments about these people being bad on a personal level and hence they shouldn't be read in debates.

---the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your K

---Explain what the alt does and how it functions so I know what I’m voting for

---Reject the aff is definitely not an alt, unless all of your links are about how the aff makes something worse that the squo solves, in which case just frame/read it as a case turn

---PIKs are okay but must be in the block and must be articulated in what they look like in the world of the alt. It's very easy for me to find these arguments illegitimate, especially if the 2AC preempts it.

T:

---I definitely find myself leaning competing interps, if an interp is that abusive for the aff then why can't they just beat it?

---If I have an articulation of what reasonability means in the context of the round, how the aff meets it, and why it should be preferred it's not impossible to win.

---Neg needs a case list and a list of ground they lost and why that matters.

---Ground isn't an impact, rather an I/L to fairness.

---Extend an impact to T, obviously.

Theory: High threshold for rejecting the team, exception is condo, and needs to have clash if you want to win

Framework (Aff vs K): Make your interp whatever you want, just articulate why your interp is better than the negs from a fairness perspective.

Framework (Neg vs K-Aff): Debate is a game with educational benefits, warrant out your standards and why your interp solves their offense

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Lansing HS Assistant Coach

KU '

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that