As a judge, I prioritize evidence and logical reasoning, which aligns with a Kritikal or Tabula Rasa paradigm. I believe in the importance of critical thinking and challenging assumptions. While I value clarity and organization in debates, I'm particularly interested in debaters who challenge the status quo and delve into the underlying impacts of arguments. For me, it's essential that debaters engage critically with the resolution and present substantive, thought-provoking arguments. I encourage competitors to be prepared to present well-supported, critical arguments and engage in thoughtful discourse rather than relying solely on conventional strategies.

As an ex-debater I am likely to vote on stock issues over real-world implications. Leaving solvency and/or disadvantage arguments untouched is ill-advised. These will often be the arguments that I base my decision on.

Criteria over framework. I want to hear about the impacts of the plan (both good and bad).

Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't rush through, but go as quickly as necessary to present all relevant information.

Will reward strategic choices with speaker points, but please be kind to your opponent. There is a big difference in proving that someone is wrong and attempting to make another debater look ignorant or incompetent.

Road maps are essential for EVERY speech other than the 1A

Kritiks and Counterplans OK but please do not attempt to run one if you are not comfortable with the process.

This is my first year judging debate. It is also my first year experiencing anything in debate as well. It is important to that debaters speak in a clear, concise manner. This does not necessarily mean slowly. It does, however, mean that you need to be articulate so that I can understand everything that you are arguing. It is possible to be articulate and speedy!

It is important to me that all debaters stay on topic and be specific. Generic disadvantages are not needed.

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Focus more of quality of attacks and provide supporting evidence.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Stay within the allotted time and clash civilly with your opponents.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

No comment.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Use statistics.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific and defined examples.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Topicality is fine, however do not make it your whole speech. Focus more if the plan is plausible.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

It's also very important that the debaters speak clearly and can pronounce the difficult words well.

Make sure that when your opponent is speaking and you are discussing with your partner, you speak in a low tone. It's distracting and disruptive.

No kritics; it is not your job to evaluate the debater.

Preferred Debate Styles: CX, Policy

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually. If it is brought up as an argument, it should be discussed.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

No comment.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Stay within the allotted time and clash civilly with your opponents. Citations after evidence is read is important.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

No comment.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

As long as you prove it and support it with evidence, I don't care.

Please explain your views on critical arguments.

Run whatever you want.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Topicality is to only be run when actually applicable.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

It's also very important that the debaters speak clearly and can pronounce the difficult words well.

Make sure that when your opponent is speaking and you are discussing with your partner, you speak in a low tone. It's distracting and disruptive.

Brevity is appreciated when possible. Word salads make for a messy meal.

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

I do not have any experience competing in debate, however, I do have experience observing and judging debate competitions.

I am looking for an organized, clear, concise debate, as well as speakers who are knowledgeable about the information they are presenting.

There is a difference between being assertive and being rude. Stand your ground but DO NOT belittle each other. That will not win points with me

I am looking for a fast pace that is still able to be understood. Make sure to annunciate!

If using kritques, explain thoroughly.

Go into your rebuttals explaining why you should win.

Be confident! Look up from your laptops/papers!

-Cate Gutteridge

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).

Howdy!

I'm currently a sophomore in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

I did debate all through high school and college, and have coached it as well. So I can keep up with most arguments and ideas.

Things I like in a debate are clash, good theory, stock issues, and impact calc. The more straightforward the better. The more squirrely your argument the less likely I am to vote for it.

PLEASE DO ROADMAPS

I like good Topicality arguments, and can't stand ones that are just there for time sucks or because you have nothing better to run. Please don't do this.

I really don't care for K's. If you run a good one, and it explain it very well, I'm good with it.

Some speed is fine, but if you can't say the whole word, you're going too fast.

Be polite. There is a line between being assertive and a jerk. Know that line, because I don't like voting for jerks, even if they were the better debater.

-I debated 4 years in high school

-Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me in a debate

-I would say I generally judge tabula rasa

-DELIVERY: I'm good with fairly rapid delivery as long as it is accompanied by clear enunciation; I would probably prefer no spreading

-COUNTERPLANS: acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

-TOPICALITY: rarely important; a violation of topicality must be fairly blatant and very well argued by the negative to win my ballot

-GENERIC DAs: acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

-KRITIKS: accceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

Put me on the chain: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South, head coached at Sacred Heart high school, and assistant coached at McPherson High School.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

I was a 4-year state debater and now I am an assistant debate coach. As a policy maker judge I look at the Aff case as if it was a plan in congress. I weigh it on if it will accomplish more good than bad. I prefer realistic impacts for both advantages and disadvantages. While topicality is important, I rarely vote on it. However if the neg makes a good enough case for it, then I will vote on it. I do not care for Kriticks. Counterplans are fine.

I currently serve as a high school librarian. I participated in debate in high school and college. I like to see speakers pause after important points and paraphrase the information given as it relates to the argument they are presenting. I like to see some eye contact.

My name is Rosalinda Ochoa.

I have never done debate during high school or college. I have judged debate. I prefer to get persuaded to take your side over the matter by being well prepared in all aspects. Assurance does matter in debate according to my interest. The speed of delivering the info to me has no major importance but make sure plenty info gets delived to support your place. Delivering the info clearly will have a major impact on a decision as well as confidence, body language and eye contact. Doing a great job as a team while being respectful will have great impact as well.

I appreciate the hard work they put in so lets hear what you have!

I debated for 4 years at Bishop Miege. I am a flow judge.

I will default to policy maker unless you convince me to follow a different paradigm that is more important for the specific round. I prefer that you show me practical, real-world implications on both the affirmative and negative. I typically will not vote on topicality unless it is especially egregious. I believe counter-plans must be incompatible with the affirmative case. I will likely not vote on Kritiques.

Please do not spread.

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

As a judge, I value two things highly

One: First and foremost, I see this an exercise in good communication. If you speak so rapidly that I can't follow you, I can't in good conscience give you the win because I don't know understand your argument. Second to that, I don't want you to read me tons of cards. I believe your evidence should support your speech, not be your speech.

Second: Stock issues. These exist for a reason in this event.

In essence, I value traditional, logical, and well-articulated arguments.

I do not prefer K's. There are very few K's that I believe are successful arguments and would need to be very well articulated and sound argumentation.

Do not yell! Passion does not equal louder. Please maintain a reasonable volume.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

Hello! My name is Ruby, and I did debate for all of one year in high school, but have done debate judging a few times over the years since. I assess debate rounds over how much the arguments make sense and how compellingly they are presented. If topicality is actually applicable, I think it can be compelling, but making topicality for the sake of topicality doesn't really make sense. Generic disadvantages are acceptable (not preferred), but present them in a way that demonstrates the connection between that and what the other team is talking about. I will be honest and say I don't quite understand kritikal arguments, but if you can make a good kritikal argument that makes sense, go for it! Talk at a comprehensible please, arguments are really only good if you can understand them, and understanding needs to take into account speed. Most of all, have fun!

TLDR - 2023 Update (Nov 22, 2023): Debate well. Don't drop arguments. Don't be mean. If both teams do something wrong. each of you gets equal leeway (only applies to dropped args, not being an -ist). Run what you want to run, I'm good for a lot just say it more than once if you want me to care, don't leave it in the 1NC and expect me to just pick it up in the 2NR. Stock issues are not my favorite as an argument on its own without justification. That goes with any argument, if you are willing to make it, be ready to justify it with warrants, analysis, comparison, calculus, and explanation as the debate progresses. If you have time, this video is great on how I and many other judges feel about judging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5RTXQemPs&ab_channel=BillBatterman

Me - Pronouns He/Him: Computer Science Undergrad @ K-State,

Background: Currently with K-State College Policy Debate, 4 years HS Policy, 4 years Congress, 1 year PFD

Qualifications for the topic (2023):
I have judged at least 10 rounds this year on the topic throughout the semester and worked at the K-State Debate Camp. Don't assume I know enough about your aff or your DAs to throw around jargon like GND and JG a billion times without ever saying what your acronyms mean.

Contact info:

Contact me with any questions after the round: djrdec30+judging@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain if that is what you decide to use for file sharing. I don't care if I get documents before the speech. I want to have them in case there is a dispute in the round.
UPDATE: I have used and love speechdrop too. If you all decide to use speechdrop.net then make sure I get the code for the same reason I want to be on the email chain.

Evidence DISCLAIMER: Do not expect me to read all of your evidence in depth after the round to make my decision. If you want to dispute something, make it known. If you want me to remember it, say it in your rebuttals. For novice I give some leeway but if the other team is better with keeping a clear and consistent story they will likely win.

Defaults:

I default policymaker in most cases (see K debate). If you present a K, consider me tabula rasa. If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me and tell me why.

Stock issues alone don't give the negative an INSTA-WIN. You still have the burden to prove why your argument matters. Topicality is a separate issue. Yes it is a stock issue, but it is also a procedural which you need to explain. There is an epidemic of T arguments that have no impacts(education, fairness, ground, clash...) in the 1NC and they often get forgotten later so debaters expect me to just vote that they read a card and the Aff loses, no thanks. Also, claiming "we read a card against their solvency, therefore they must lose" is far less convincing than "this is a terminal solvency deficit that makes it easy for you to vote on a low risk of the disad". Reading something on Inherency that they drop is an easier ballot but explain why, I won't do that work for you.

Example: Saying "they don't have solvency and should lose" when all you read was "companies circumvent" is not convincing. I will weigh that as a deficit to solvency so they likely solve something but not as much as they claim. Now, Inherency can be convincing sometimes. In the water topic, the cases that said "we want to fix lead pipes" were beaten by teams that said "Biden has money and resources for that in the Infrastructure Bill". But again this was the 1AC plan will literally be done in a month. So, unless you can prove 98.9% these things are true, then I'm unlikely to vote on it. If you say Biden could easily pass the plan, then tell my why I can't vote for them because of that. Speed is fine but I get the right to yell clear and stop flowing if you are unclear.

Speed

I will listen to any speed you want to throw at me. The clearer you are the more arguments I will have on my flow. If you do not clearly indicate when you move from one page or card or arg to the next I will do my best but it is your job to make sure my flow is clean and clear. A simple solution is a louder AND, or NEXT OFF, or GO TO ADV 1...

K Debate:

I am a K debater (aff and neg) in college (go 'Cats!), so run what you want but explain it like any other argument. Dumping a Cap K on some 2nd-year debaters and saying Marx will save us all probably is not accurate to your authors, and you likely don't need the K to win either. I'll hear your arguments, but I sometimes hold a lower threshold for teams to respond to the K because many kids in the circuit cannot access that research or coaching. Email me if you have questions. You can see my wiki on the College Caselist Kansas State - RT. Feel free to ask me questions in person because I love talking about debate.

What I want to see:

- Application to the flow: Each argument should go somewhere. If you have a turn, an answer, anything, then you need to tell me: is it on the DA?, is it on the Case?, If so what contention or advantage?

- Do what you have been taught. I prefer you tell me at some point, what that argument either does to the entire round, or what that specific card does for you on that specific place. This is the best way to write my ballot because it makes it very clear who is winning on the flow (instead of saying "we win here because" 1000 times with no reason why).

- Impact Calc: It is never too early for impact calc. Even if you don't have a direct answer to the case or the DA, do impact work. It is the easiest way to generate some defense. Or, you can turn the impact and make it clear why it affects the way I vote, just like anything else.

- I am good with hearing Ks, CPs, DAs, and whatever theory you throw at me. Specifics below

Ks need a full story because you cannot assume I am knowledgeable of your K. I will not judge kick the alt and you need a really good reason why the non-unique links are independent case turns that outweigh if you kick just the alt in the block. (why do I care if literally anyone thinking about policy could link)

CPs should include a full plan text and a solvency advocate (ofc if you have a reason not to, fine but the aff might win the "they don't have an advocate" debate, your choice). Run your theory. I am sympathetic to the neg on Condo. I literally don't know what dispositionality solves, explain it if you want but honestly limiting the amount of conditional advocacies or just saying condo bad seems to be stronger. I am not sympathetic to 1-liner style theory that Kansas debaters love. If its a voter you need to spend time on it. Every trap requires time to be built and set, take the time or I won't entertain it. Perms can be short but it usually doesn't make sense to read 5 perms at lightning speed all 5 words long because you know which one you are going for and I won't vote on "they didn't answer our perms" when they probably read a generic perm answer that is sufficient.

PERM BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example Bad Perm Block: Perm Do Both, Do the CP, Do the Aff, Do the CP then the Aff

Okay Perm Block: Perm Do Both: The US Should do the [1AC] and the [CP text] (At the same time or at different times...)

Better Perm Block: Perm do Both, Perm do the CP (read card the process is the same), Do the CP then the aff: The US should... explain how that works.
Especially in the 1AR, pick 1 perm and really explain how that works and why the CP is not competitive.

THEORY BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example BAD Theory: Conditionality is a reason to reject the team because its unfair for us to answer so many things.
Example GOOD Theory: Interp: Negative teams get 1 condo advocacy... Voting reason for fairness because aff has to contradict itself, time skew harms clash and skews strategy which makes debate an unplayable game causing people to leave... (You get the point, an attempt at warrants and real impacts is there, still short but actually makes sense)

DAs, you can run any impact you want, just tell me how mandatory minimums reform is somehow going to cause a nuclear war. I'll believe you when you walk me through that story, I am a sucker for those. All generic links can and should be articulated in Cross and the Block as specific to the aff. Read your link cards and figure out what about the plan links. Why does fiscal redistribution actually force the IRS to abandon counter-terror operations?

Topicality: run it how you like it. I am okay with the time suck as long as the aff doesn't win on the time suck abuse theory. If your topicality argument doesn't have a definition and a reason why I should vote on it, I'm not voting on it.

What I don't want to hear:

- Drops are important: try your best not to just ignore your opponent's arguments. I am flowing I will notice but if the other team drops it then it is dropped and not in my decision (with some leeway, if you also drop critical stuff then I give your opponent some room). Don't drop pieces of offense in the 2AC or 2NC (I mean don't forget a disad in the 2AC or forget a DA turn in the 2NC that the aff made) but if there were a lot off case in the 1NC I can be lenient to light coverage and more analytics.

- Analysis, not just evidence: I don't want to see a 2AC or 2NC that is just reading ev. I specified above that I at least need to know where it goes and at some point why it affects my decision with a specific claim or whole argument.

If you have any questions please don't be afraid to ask.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I prefer actual communication and good speaking skills over rapid delivery. While I'm not an expert in K debate, I do understand the use of evidence, analysis, and snark. I would suggest that you only use the first two. While you may tell me how I "must vote," this technique annoys me and detracts from your argument. Just be a great communicator.

Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.

Background:

4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)

4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)

1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)

General In-Round Info:

Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.

LD (Highschool):

Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.

LD (College) CX (Highschool):

*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.

Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.

Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.

Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.

Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.

I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.

That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.

Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.

I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.

Pronouns: he/his

stegman76@gmail.com

I used to coach at a 2A high school in Kansas. I'm a stock issue as well as policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important; however, I hate T arguments that are just there to fill time.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are something I'm not super comfortable judging well. I've only seen them run once or twice...by novices at the beginning of their debate career. I'm not opposed to them, but don't feel I could accurately gauge if a K is run well or not.

Don't just read evidence and leave it at that - analyze, analyze, analyze!

I prefer moderate contest speed. Not a super big fan of spreading.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

I do not tolerate racism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying, no matter how good you are if you are disrespectful it will be reflected in my decision. This doesn't mean you can't be sassy it just means don't cross that line otherwise I will stop the round and we will have a talk after your speech.

Do Not Spread

- No new in the 2NC is a bad argument and you will not win on it.

Topicality: Controversial opinion not every case needs to have a test on how topical they are. I have a high threshold to believe T, effects T is okay I guess same for extra T so make sure it is explained well. I see T as a DA to the Case, it is a voting issue just like a DA so if you go for this tell me why T is more important than solving the issue.

The K: Cool run it but the alt must have a good explanation in every speech it appears in. Also the argument "the k doesn't make any real change" won't fly with me, when I vote for policy affs and cps I understand there is no physical action taken there either. Prove why the alt can't solve, run a perm, no link it, and maybe even prove why you solve the issue better.

The K aff is completely fine with me but explain what the role of the ballot is, your advocacy/alt, and how the negatives arguments link to the problems the aff describes. If you are facing a performance K aff than talk about the content in the performance.

Theory: Cool and theory doesn't have to be a minute long block or anything but I don't want theory one liners that get blown up in the 2NR that had no voting issue? impact in the beginning of the round.

Speed: Fast is fine but I reserve the right to yell clear if I do not understand what you are saying or volume if you need to be louder. Also I might miss analytics if you go too fast so go at tag speed on the analytics.

Case: It exists the neg should argue on it and affs should carry through the key points of the case and its advantages. I would love to see people quoting evidence in their explanations and using the other teams ev to link to their arguments. Case turns keep me alive.

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

Email: Mtaylor@silverlakeschools.org

General:

I really appreciate nice humans. Rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. behavior will not be tolerated.

Overall, I like debate...in all its forms. If you want to win something in front of me just do the work to make it matter.

Some general thoughts...

Don't flow from the speech doc. Every debate round I have judged for the past 6 years on the circuit has pretty much been won by the team who was flowing properly. When you aren't flowing, you aren't able to see the round properly, you miss really important things like turns and cross applications, your line-by-line is terrible, and you reduce the debate to a bunch of overviews that don't help me decide anything.

I can handle most rates of speed fairly comfortably, but if you are going top-rate, I'm going to be less confident in my ability to get everything, especially virtually. If I am not able to understand I will say clear. Obviously, don't race through theory or any blocks of really important analysis that you are going to want me to vote on later.

The 2AR/2NR should be telling me when, what, where, why and how. If you want me to vote for something tell me explicitly how to evaluate it and why it matters. "even if" arguments are really important in your framing of the round in rebuttals. Contextualization is important.

Topicality

I will always listen to everything you read, but I generally subscribe to the theory that if it is not blatantly untopical, then I really don't care to waste time on T. I am going to break from tradition and scandalize a few people here...but I will generally evaluate reasonability with the same frequency I do competing interps...UNLESS you don't impact it out and give me some analysis why reasonability is good. Blocked out blurbs about ground and predictability are not going to do much in terms of showing me why this argument is important. I hold T to the same standards of analysis and impact development as all other arguments. That being said, do the work and I will be more likely to vote on it.

Disads

Generic is fine...but in my old age I am starting to really prefer specific links and I love a really unique/specific link story. Really good analysis and inference can take a mediocre DA and make it pretty good, so take the time to do the specific analysis.

CPs

In a world where a lot of our big topics become overly generalized by the affirmative team without much attention to rule of law or specifics, I think the CP has a lot of value. I like a well thought out plan text with good Solvency. What ever happened to dispositionality? I don't think affs utilize their cases enough when answering and I think that there needs to be a lot more debate on the CP proper than what currently happens. I will listen to theory, but I generally don't vote unless there is evident abuse.

Ks

Don't expect that I can do much work here for you in terms of lit; I just don't know enough to be able to make those connections in my head. I'm fairly familiar with Neolib, Cap, Set Col and Fem, the rest I'm really going to need you to slow down and give me some analysis. I was not a K debater in school, but that was mostly due to a lack of exposure, not necessarily preference and I really enjoy the critical side of debate. Context is important. It is much easier for me to vote Neg on the K when the negative can show that their alt resolves the links to the K and takes time to contextualize how the Alt functions in the world of the Aff.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I see disadvantages as very important points in the round. I don't know much about K debate. Be a great communicator. Please provide great evidence and analysis.