I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.

I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.

Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.

I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.

How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.

I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.

On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.

Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.

She/Her

Add me to the email chain: clairechaffin11@gmail.com

-Debated for 3 years at Olathe Northwest, 2 of those in DCI. Didn't debate in college.

-I'd like to think I'm pretty tab, I like to be told what to vote for, so framing is very important to me. Make my job as easy as possible.

-Speed is fine, but please signpost and allow for clear transitions! Again, I'll want to default to the path of least resistance, so don't make my job any harder than it has to be.

-tech>truth (in most cases), I'm not gonna do your job for you.

-Just extending the tag of a card without explaining any warrants isn't sufficient, I won't extend it across my flow if there's not any depth, huge pet peeve of mine.

-Ask me questions about any specifics, but I'm down for pretty much any type of arg.

-I don't judge very often, so please explain any topic-specific acronyms.

Most of all, be kind to each other :)

(Updated September 2022)  

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 12 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I need you to explain clearly why each argument matters and why I should weigh one argument over another.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

I'd like to be on the email chain or speech drop, my email is hunterfinerty@gmail.com

My pronouns are they/them. Please respect everyone's pronouns. Don't make a big deal out of it, just fix it if you're corrected.

I graduated from De Soto High School (KS). I debated policy and did forensics (PFD, impromptu, extemp, oration, etc) all four years of high school. I'm currently a student at Baker University (not debating) majoring in sociology with an emphasis in welfare and social wellbeing with minors in psych and conflict management.

TL;DR: I will listen to anything but you've got to do the work for me. I want to see strong communication and respect, as well. Do: disclose, give roadmaps, tell me where to flow your args. Don't: clip cards, cheat, be a bad person.

Respect and Conduct

My number one priority is to be a good person. I WILL vote you down in speaks/ranks and you will most likely lose the round if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. If you do these things, it will be clearly reflected on your ballot, I will most likely have a conversation with you after the round, and I am not afraid to contact your coach if it goes too far. Be respectful. Some aggression in round can be necessary, but unnecessary rudeness is a no-go. Content warnings for sexual assault, domestic violence, suicide, etc are greatly appreciated not only for myself but for everyone else in the room. Don't clip cards. Keep track of where you end and make it clear where cards are being cut.

Policy

Speed

Any speed is fine but please make sure I can understand you. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth, it won't go well for you. I don't want to follow along on your speech doc 100% of the time. Debate is ultimately a speech activity.

Roadmaps/Signposts/Flowing

I want to hear a roadmap at the beginning of every speech. The 2NC should make a point to acknowledge what their partner is taking in the 1NR. Roadmaps should be BRIEF. This is not a time for arguments, this is a time for me to put my sheets in order.

If you don't signpost, you will not succeed in debate. As the judge, it is not my job to do the work for you. Tell me when you move from the case flow to the DA to T, etc. Also tell me WHERE ON THE FLOW you're responding. Tell me which specific card or argument your argument is in response to (don't just tell me you're responding to the K, tell me you're specifically responding to their alt card, etc). Numbering responses is good.

You should be flowing. I was admittedly terrible about flowing when I was in debate and that put me in a lot of tricky situations. Be careful about flowing off the speech doc. You're wasting time and showing that you're not paying attention if you respond to a card the other team didn't end up reading.

I will be flowing the round on a spreadsheet.

Time

Time yourself during speeches. Sometimes I might be timing you and sometimes I won't be. This is for my own knowledge and feedback. Don't rely on me to keep you in check for speech times.

Prep time is crucial in debate. I will try to keep track of prep to hold you accountable. Use it wisely. Don't steal prep. I do not think that flashing or technology errors should use prep time (unless tournament rules specify). That being said, once the prep timer is paused, all hands should be off laptops and no pens should be moving. I will call you out and drop your speaks if this becomes excessive. This time should only be used by the person getting the file on the flash drive/in an email/on the speech drop.

Disclosure

If the other team asks you to disclose, please do. I encourage disclosure in pretty much every scenario, it makes debate fairer and more accessible. If you refuse to disclose, I assume there's something you're trying to be sneaky about. I won't give you a hassle about disclosing if you're breaking new, but honestly disclosure is probably still good. "My coach won't let us disclose" is bad debate and makes me think your coach is shady. You won't auto-lose over not disclosing, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Case

I think case debate is very important. I will vote for you if you do not run any case but still make the most compelling argument with good ev, but I'd prefer to see a mix of off-case and specific solvency/advantage indicts. If you have a ton of case stuff, UTILIZE IT but don't take T to the 2NR if you're running a bunch of specific case stuff and specific DA links (it just feels silly).

DA

DAs have always been my go-to neg strat. I'll vote on any well-run DA but I want to see clash. I prefer specific links but generic is fine if you argue them well. The link chain HAS to make sense. If you're only reading one card, it isn't a DA!

T

Topicality is kind of a necessary evil. I've run it and I'm fine if you do, but there needs to be a reason. If you whip out a bunch of specific advantage answers and DA links, I don't really have a reason to believe that their case is abusive or that the neg is disadvantaged. Make sure to have a definition, violation, standards, and voters. Aff, respond to all parts.

CP

I love a good CP but it should be competitive. The aff should always perm the CP (and you can read multiple perms). I want to see solvency and a clear net benefit. Internal and/or external net benefits are cool. Just explain it well and make sure I know why the CP is better than the aff.

K

I'm not the most experienced K judge you'll ever meet, but I consistently ran abolition on the CJR topic during my senior year. I can follow along and I wish I had gotten into K debate sooner. If you run it, you HAVE to understand it. Don't assume I'm familiar with your lit and make sure to explain it well. I also need to see clarity in CX on the K, if both partners can't adequately answer simple questions then we've got an issue. Don't read more than one K in the round (they usually contradict) unless its like Language (or anything conduct related) + Set Col (or any "regular" K).

Theory

Theory is fine. I could go either way, but don't waste your time unless it really matters in the whole context of the round. Condo usually isn't bad (and neg positions probably should be condo unless you're running one off K). Dispo is really stupid.

PFD

I debated PFD during my senior year and competed at NSDA Nats, but I am certainly not as familiar here as I am with policy. I don't have extensive knowledge about the topic area, but I know my way throughout the round. Same conduct rules for me in PFD as in policy- be a good person and make an effort to learn.

LD

I have very minimal experience with LD. That being said, don't hold back. I will listen to and evaluate anything as long as you're a respectful person during the round.

Most importantly, have fun! Try new things, make mistakes. We are all always learning. Feel free to ask my any questions about my paradigm before the round and feel free to email me (nicely) with any questions after you get your ballot.

Former three year debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. My preference on links is pretty generic as I would prefer you to use specific links but generics are fine as long as you are prepared to defend them. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. While it is of course important to talk about all of FW, I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case: The only real arguments for me for the on case are purely solvency based ones. Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, solvency deficits mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc. Besides solvency, I think that case turns are very useful as on case arguments as well. Overall, solvency arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Speaks: I decide speaks based upon argumentation not necessarily presentation. Obviously some speaking ability is factored in, but I’ve gotta be fair to the 1As out there.

I can flow

LHS '23

KU '27

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

Policy General

Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss

Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)

IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round

Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important

don't be a terrible person

Theory

I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo)

condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar

T

T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there

Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse

T is generally not an rvi

DA

I'm chill with linear da's or 2 card da's

DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc

Brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v

CP

Competition theory is important.Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan--that includes impact calc

There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking

If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework

K

I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.

Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens

I debated set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've researched some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k

Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it

I like rejection alts, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)

K Aff

I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary

The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency

T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate (but who cares if neg is winning the t flow)

Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize

Case

I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important

If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively defense

I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns

BTW, I consider impact calc to have 2 levels: the in round impacts and the imaginary fiat impacts and I weigh in round impacts over fiat impacts

Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

LD General

I debated LD for 4 years in high school, have gone to nationals and was the 2023 5A state champ, so I have quite a few feelings about the activity

The most valuable part of LD is time: maximize offense and be concise always or you'll lose

I debated pure offense in LD: everyone else's value/criterion is problematic and maximize offense on the contention debates

V/Crit

i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the means or thesis the case achieves the value

clash on v/crit is super underrated and makes the debate really easy to win

defense is mid for me because i don't have a clear reason to prefer one or the other without sufficient offense

Contention debate

i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work

contentions can take the form of policy speeches or kritiks, but i'd prefer if they were formatted appropriately: don't run policy debate offcase, just read it on case or make it a main contention

topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it

Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

NCFL Update: Don't clip. Idk why this tournament is so wild about this. If you have evidence that is highlighted, and you don't read all of the highlighted portion but act like you did (i.e. don't say "Mark the card at _____"), you are cheating and committing and ethics violation. This will result in an autoloss and the lowest possible speaker points I can give you UNLESS the other team clips. In which case both teams will get minimum speaks and I'll be very grumpy trying to determine a winner. Any questions about this? Don't risk it, ask before the round. I'm happy to clarify.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Alix Kunkle — Head Coach at Spring Hill High School

kunklea@usd230.org — Add me to your chain, please.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

If evidence sharing is going to be more than a few seconds, evidence sharing should be done as prep. In the age of technology, we should be able to exchange evidence in a timely manner without it delaying the round. Please don't abuse your time.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

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)

I debated in the 1980s. While I maintained the "stock issues" paradigm for a decade or so after that, I have become more progressive. Twenty-four years of coaching have demanded it.

My coaching resume:

4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)

10 years Shawnee Mission North

12 years Shawnee Mission West

1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit

What I do not like:

DISRESPECT OF ANY KIND . . . check your sarcastic tone, your eye rolls, and your bad attitude at the door. Be a good person.

provocative language (especially slurs; I know people use them in real life, but I do not need to hear them in a debate round to be "woke")

super fast spreading (I need slower tags, and I need you to slow down if I clear you)

theory debate

extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple

What I like:

topic-centered debate

real-world application

K debates where things are explained to me in a way to make me feel morally obligated to decide correctly

strong 2NR and 2AR . . .my favorite speeches!

people who are kind but assertive

Shawn Lawson

lawsondb8@gmail.com

he/they

Debated at Olathe East (2020 - 2023)

Assistant Coach for Olathe West (2023 - Present)

Attending KU but not debating there at the moment

Important

Call me by my first name if you really want to but I'd prefer if you just call me judge

If you’re just reading from your computer your speaks won’t be great.

Don’t be racist, sexist, any -ist, or clip. If you do you will lose with the lowest speaks I can give you.

Have fun. Both of us are sacrificing our free time to be here so if you aren’t having fun then I’m probably not having fun, and why are we here if we’re all miserable?

Top Level

I will listen to anything. If it matters, I mostly ran affs without a plan and Ks on the neg my last year of high school and its what I’m most familiar with.

Buzzwords and long overviews frighten and confuse me, and make it very hard to flow and vote for you.

Tech>truth unless I’m really confused and can’t make a decision otherwise.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. If you’re unclear I will do my best to let you know. If I clear you multiple times and still can’t understand you, I’ll just stop trying to flow arguments I can’t hear.

Clear ending rebuttals that extend the best arguments from the round with good impact calc are the best way to my ballot.

Please give a roadmap and sign post or else I will literally start sobbing.

Prep

Time your own prep please.

It shouldn’t take you 2 minutes to send a document.

The other team sending out a doc doesn't mean that you get free prep time. I thought this went without saying but apparently it doesn't.

Stealing prep will hurt your speaks a lot.

Speaks

I don’t know how most judges do speaks but I think that an average debater on the TOC or DCI circuit should get 28.5. Higher means that I think you’re good, lower means there’s room for improvement. If you get lower than a 20 that means you did something seriously wrong.

NOVICE SPEAKS: Since novice speaks are on a scale of 1-4, there's less of a benchmark on what good speaks are. Just... do better than the other people in the round??? See below for what I think a good speaker looks like.

Ways to get higher speaks:

-Being clear

-Looking away from your computer

-Slowing down when you're saying something really important

-Giving rebuttals without your computer (I don't expect this for the 1AR but will be impressed if you give a good 1AR with no computer)

-Making jokes

-Strong cross x

-Ending your speech with "and that's how the cookie crumbles" (Lets me know you read my paradigm)

-

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.

I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.

Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.

Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.

Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.

Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.

Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.

I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Hello,

I am the Leavenworth High School Debate Coach. That being said I like to keep things classic. Please provide an off-time road map and signposting. This is extremely helpful for me, as I flow rounds when I judge, and since I'm not The Flash I can only write so fast. Use those stock issues they are there not only to help me but you as well. However, I'm not picky about the order you go in. If you are going to spread please articulate. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. I will say "clear" once and if I still can't understand you after that, I will judge accordingly. I like K's I think they are highly entertaining. That being said if you are going to run a K, make sure you know it inside and out. Please whenever possible be able to state things in your own words. It helps me flow and proves you understand and can defend your case. If I don't see clash in the round I will get bored. You must provide this. Make sure you are reading taglines and summarizing after each card. If you are going to run a DA it needs a shell same with Topicalities. Provide a summary of the whole case at the end and walk me through your thought process. Remember new evidence in rebuttals is fine, but no new arguments. If you are AFF you have the burden of proof therefore, do not drop arguments. And finally, have fun! This is an educational exercise, but a great opportunity to make new friends.

General Overview

My political views trend liberal with a smattering of libertarian thrown in. But do I try hard to be aware of my own biases, and counter them when evaluating policies and arguments.

I will intervene on the ballot if I think you are being rude, sexist, racist, or deplorable to your opponents or partner. I've sat with too many kids in tears because of how they were treated in a round. I will not accept it, nor will I enable it. Play nice.

I am not a particularly fast flow; if you go too fast you will lose me - especially your analytics. If I don't write it down, you didn't say it. My suggestion is that you start at 3/4 speed and watch my non-verbals. (Yes, I still believe a speaker should at least occasionally make eye contact with the audience.) I will not tell you to slow down, but if you think I should be writing and I am not, you have probably lost me.

In Policy Debate, I default policy maker. I default to probability over magnitude in most impact debates. (e.g. Russia invaded Ukraine, and no nukes have been used. But the trauma and destruction are still real and awful, and are a compelling reason to make policy.)

I will vote on topicality if the Aff is not at least reasonably topical, and the Neg wins the argument.

I have a rather high threshold for voting on kritiks that are not intuitively linked to the topic. (e.g. on the 2023-2024 topic, Cap K seems intuitively linked, Spinoza and Confucius do not) Very few policy decisions based solely on the views of dead philosophers have been successful. Having said that, I'm willing to listen to a kritik, and have voted for a number of them. Just keep in mind, my policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

When deciding a round, I begin with the arguments in the 2NR and 2AR. Those will be my primary concerns, as those should be the the salient points for each team if they made good choices. Make sure in those speeches to explain clearly how the positions interact, and why you believe I should vote for you.

Extend your key arguments through the debate - it is a good habit to form. Failing that, evidence read in the first constructive that is not contradicted by the opponent does still exist in my understanding of the round, even if not explicitly extended. I will presume if there is no argument against, the opponent is willing to stipulate its truth, at least temporarily. Making reference to it in rebuttals is still legit, but only if the other side has not argued it. If you don't want the argument/evidence to carry through, make an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I will focus primarily on the Value and Criterion debates. I believe this is where LD should differ from policy and PF debate. Policy implications are only important to me if the topic specifically calls for it. But keep in mind, I will be looking closely at how those implications interact with the value and criterion you establish.

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.

1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

2. My speed threshold is around 8.0/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please slow down on the analytics you don't put in the doc; if I can't hear them, I won't flow them.

3. Open cross is fine.

4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.

Prefs

1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .

2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.

3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.

4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.

5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.

I'm mostly a stock issues judge, but I also weigh impact of the policy.
I'm good with K's if there's a clear purpose and if it's explained clearly.
I'm fine with counterplans and topicality. Both just need to have a clear purpose and not just added filler.
Really not a fan of high speed. I still flow by hand. I want to be able to understand you.
Being nice and show good sportsmanship, please.

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!

I am a high school teacher and a lay judge.

When I'm judging, I appreciate a slower pace; spend more time explaining your thoughts to me instead of trying to cram multiple ideas into a set time limit.

It's important to me that debaters treat each other with respect.

I've had Ks explained to me, but I am not compelled to vote on them.

Pronouns: They/them - yes I am fem-presenting, doesn't matter. I will vote you down for repeatedly misgendering me or anyone else in the round. On the subject, I will probably ask for everyone's pronouns.

Email for email chains: defeateddrum@gmail.com

PLEASE use an email chain OR speechdrop, my computer doesn't like flash drives for some reason lol.

Experience:

3 years of Varsity Debate at Lansing High School. I was a finalist at Iowa Caucus and made it to Quarters at Glenbrooks. I was a competitor for Lansing at Kansas Regionals and State Tournaments for two years , I also qualified and competed at CFL and NSDA's tournaments.

Foreword: Be good people. I will not hesitate to vote you down for any transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and whatnot, no matter who it's directed towards. I will take off speaker points and leave a comment on the ballot if a male debater is blatantly speaking over a woman or fem-presenting person in cross-ex or anywhere else; this has happened to me in-round, I know what the difference between an aggressive cross-ex and misogyny is. If I hear or see you in any way harassing or bullying your opponents before, during, or after round, you will be voted down. This includes running things like Heidegger; I will vote you down if you run a Nazi's arguments. If you think the other team/ anyone in the room has been transphobic/homophobic/ misogynistic/racist/etc, call it out.

FOR PAPER TEAMS: If you debate on paper, I have certain requirements, these are not optional. 1) You cannot use a laptop in other speeches. A paper 1AC and a digital every other speech is needless gatekeeping of information. 2) You MUST have a copy of the aff for the neg AND the judge, they must have access to this at the START of the 1AC.

I consider violation of these an ethics violation, I will auto downvote you for it. If there are unique circumstances, talk to me.

DISCLOSURE RULES: Disclosure is REQUIRED unless the aff is breaking new (aka this is the first time running this aff). If you refuse to disclose, I will ask if you are breaking new. If you are not, I will require that you disclose.

On to the actual paradigm lol

I was a very tech-y debater, so if something's not covered on here, assume I have a really tech opinion. I am tech over truth.

Topicality:

-I ADORE a good T debate.

- Standards like limits, ground, and brightline are where the bulk of the T debate should be.

-I default to competing interpretations. It's really hard to convince me to vote on reasonability but I can do it if it's well-done.

-Having good interp cards is not as important to me as the impact your interp has on the topic/debatespace.

-TVA's are great, but you don't need them to win a T debate with me.

-Squirrely T definitions are fine with me. Just run them well.

-You don't really need to explain to me why education and fairness are impacts, but DO explain how limits and ground shape them.

Disadvantages:

-I really dislike DA's that have no internal link chain or one that makes no sense.

-I will accept generic links, but some analytic explanation of how they link to this specific case (esp if the Aff calls you on it) is good.

Kritiks:

-I. LOVE. K'S. I ran the Cap K all the time, I love them!

-That being said, I don't know a ton of deep deep K literature. I am fine with the basics. Anything else I'll need some explanation for.

-Links of omission/masking links are NOT LINKS.

-Language and reps links are great, love em.

-Use whatever framework you want, just justify it.

Counterplans:

-I'll allow pics and plan-plus cp's IF the neg explains them, why they're competitive, etc. You'll have to do a LOT of work to convince me to vote for these. Affs are very welcome to run a million theory violations on you for it, though.

-Consult cp's are absolutely cheating though. I'll vote these down if the Aff calls it out for being cheaty.

-You need a net-benefit (internal is ok if explained) and to be mutually-exclusive, as per usual.

Case Debate:

-Affs, if you lose the case debate, you lose the round. If the 2AC doesn't extend case, and the neg mentions it, I'm putting Neg on the ballot immediately. Same with any case turn.

-I will not grant the 1AR any new arguments. You get what the 2AC says, nothing else (unless the neg reads something new in the block).

K Affs:

-I'm okay with y'all reading them, as long as you a) explain them to me, and b) run them well.

-T USFG vs K Affs is always fun to watch. I find that T-Framework is the easiest way for the neg to win against a K Aff.

-K v K debates need explanation: I find that these debates often go so high into k theoryland that I just kinda sit there not understanding a thing.

Miscellaneous Stuff:

-JUDGE. INSTRUCTION. GIVE IT TO ME. I WILL NOT give you conceded arguments unless you point them out. On that note, I hate judge intervention and will avoid doing so if possible.

-Extension = extending the claim + author/date. I am very strict on this - shadowextensions do not count, I will not flow them.

-Ask me questions before and after rounds! I love answering questions, please come ask me! If you disagree with one of my decisions, come ask me why I voted the way I did (respectfully, of course).

-Barry 17

-Lighthearted banter and jokes between teams is a-ok with me

-If you need bathroom break or a breather if you're super anxious, let me know and go ahead.

-I don’t care if you eat/drink in round, just don’t be disruptive.

-I consider more than 7 off a jerk move and abusive. You're giving the 2AC a minute per offcase. Don't push it. Neg, you should be able to win a round with as little as 1 off or just case - running 7 off shows me that your strategy is "I hope we send the aff into a panic and exploit it" - that makes the debate worse for everyone.

-Have fun, do your best, and don't run Heidegger.

Good luck :D!

Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.***

If you read nothing else in this paradigm statement, read this: I reserve the right to vote down rude debaters and performers, based on principle alone. The world has enough anger; I won't participate in meanness. Not everything has to be sunshine and butterflies (I can be prickly, myself), but unkindness is a deal-breaker.

ALL DEBATE EVENTS: I don't come down with a hard line on tech vs truth, but in general, I tend to value truth over tech. That's not a popular position, I know. But empty sophistry is a problem in our community, y'all. Still, each round kind of shapes itself differently, and sometimes technical play matters more. This is good analysis of why I'm not tech over truth (https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/tech-and-truth-how-judges-are-ruining-debate), while paying careful attention to separate my opinions from the actual debate. But if an argument is weak, I'm under no obligation to accept it. Is that judge intervention? Then it is judge intervention. I'm your audience. I'm going to vote for somebody. Come win me.

POLICY DEBATE: I'm a current head coach, but I'm behind on some technical play and I may get lost if you get into the weird stuff. Still, I’ll try!

Having learned the game of debate before the ubiquity of the internet, I’m a classic (vintage?) example of a stock issues judge who likes fundamentally strong debate and who tends to dislike Kritikal debate because of the way it pressures the judge into unfair positions between competing social ills. Run them if you want and I'll make my best judgment, but if you put me in an untenable position of destroying the earth or ruining the humanity that's left, I won't like it. But even though I can flow rounds, weigh impacts, and know the difference between my aff and a perm, I firmly believe that speech skills actually matter-- stand up straight and make eye contact. Speak to the judge in the back of the room, not the electrons zipping across your screen.

I pine for the halcyon days of outline-structured arguments, numbered responses, and roadmaps that sounded something like “Disad #1, Topicality, Disad #2, then Case-in-order”.

It is not abusive to run new arguments in either second constructive; constructives are for constructing arguments; that is why they are called "constructive" speeches. "No New in the Two" is for the weak.

Paperless debate should make debate rounds faster and more efficient, not slow them down because we forgot to do the upload or sprawl with "did you get it?" email chain lags. If you're going to drag this round out for electronic reasons, keep your prep time running. It's not a voting issue, of course. But we all have a duty to keep the tournament moving. Make policy ninety-minutes again!

I'm not convinced that "stealing prep" is actually a thing. Get up there and start speaking; they don't steal prep if you're talking.

Counterplans must be non-topical, otherwise both teams are affirming the resolution and both teams want me to vote Aff. "If the world is against non-topical-only Counterplans, then I am against the world!" --St. Athanasius of Alexandria (attributed)

I am impressed when people seem to actually know their pre-prepared blocks, and when it seems like they've thought about this argument at least once before they're standing up to read at me. It's great when people understand the links and how to tell its story. It's less impressive if you grab the Generic DA team block and read it without knowing what you're reading.

L-D: I'm not exactly a lay judge in LD, but I won't be insulted if you treat me that way. I definitely skew trad over prog LD. I'm very interested in how your Value will inform the rest of your case. Is it a recurring value that informs your position, or is it some noble idea that really doesn't translate into the rest of your argumentation? Debaters that claim a value/criterion and then ignore it for the rest of the debate don't tend to do well with me.

PFD: Most of the policy stuff applies here, but adapt for PF. That said, I quite dislike the Policy-ization of PF. This event was created to be different from Policy, not a lesser version of it. Discuss ideas and use evidence well, but please don't try to speed spread me and please don't try to strong arm your opponents. It's not that I don't believe in PF, but it's that I don't believe I want to work that hard as a PF judge.

Congress: Do people read Congress paradigms? Hi, Congressperson! Don't be afraid to break script to talk to your chamber rather than just reading at them; a Congress of competing oratories isn't really debate. Also, walk that fine line between being fun and being serious. Let's both enjoy our time in the Congress room! I promise that I'll take my job as a judge seriously if you take your role as a Congress debater seriously. But if you're not serious about doing a good job, I don't feel like I need to reciprocate with a seriously good score. I love this event. Let's be good for each other in it.

Other hills on which I will die: Jokes don't really work in debate rounds; two slices of mediocre pizza and some water is not worth five dollars; signposting is the difference between an average debater and a good one. In Policy Debate, open Cross-Ex insults your partner. No one wants to shake your hand. Tabula Rasa is a unicorn. Medals should have ribbons. Hospitality rooms should have soda. Every debater should also do forensics.

Be nice to each other. Speak louder. And trust me on the sunscreen.

jwalberg@sjakeepingfaith.org

***This is the sunscreen joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

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