I debated at Blue Valley North from 2020-2024 and now I'm currently a freshman debating at KU.

email: claireelizabethain@gmail.com -- prep does not stop until you hit send on the email.

I understand this topic to be more intricate and complex than many in the past, so err on the side of over-explanation earlier in the debate. It is your burden to explain topic-specific concepts that would be difficult for the average person to understand.

I care more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments in a quality manner than the type of arguments you choose to read. I will vote on any argument on my flow as long as it's articulated at a high technical level. That being said, I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence based arguments that rely on the ability to prove an undesirable effect of the affirmative. I think there is an increasing trend in negative teams trying to find more convoluted ways to avoid disproving the desirability of a plan, but obviously that's a debate to be had. I am not a fan of scouring my flow to piece together arguments and think that it is a form of judge intervention. If you read evidence with a purpose, speak clearly, and use your flow (if you are not flowing, I don't understand why I should flow you) to refute arguments, you will receive high speaks from me. Judge instruction is an important part of final rebuttals and you should clearly explain what earns you the ballot.

It feels as though less debates I've watched or been apart of have actually talked about the affirmative. I don't think most negative teams utilize case enough --- not including reading 7 impact defense cards. "I'm willing to vote on defensive arguments against incomplete affirmatives." - Brian Box.

If affirmative teams are asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX you need to answer. If your plan is the rez + one word and lacking a detailed explanation I will automatically assume that that the CP competes and the DA links. The less specific answer, the lower the burden for what the neg has to do to win vagueness becomes.

There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. If I can't understand the argument you are making do not be surprised when it does not make it onto my flow. I will clear you twice, if you remain unclear I will stop flowing your speech. If you are reading blocks as fast as you can straight into your laptop it is almost impossible for me to understand. On this note, I have hospitalizing migraines that make me somewhat sensitive to sound. All I ask is that you don't literally scream at me while you're speaking.

Evidence you read must make an argument. Highlighting three buzzwords and explaining something in the tag will make me give the opposing team more leeway in their responses. I believe that internal link cards have become especially outrageous and are under utilized when comparing impacts.

In almost every instance of a DA or a K the link matters most. I probably look at link specificity more than most judges. If I have a hard time pinpointing something specifically bad about the affirmative, I will have a hard time voting for you. It's very convincing to me if you explain how the link (or the entire) argument disproves the case or makes the aff advantages irrelevant. In the context of a K, if the alt is contextualized multiple times in different ways your speaks will drop. If you choose to go for the alt I need a clear explanation of what the alt looks like and why it matters. In K debates the team that slows down, and best explains their argument is the team that will likely get my ballot

I think that planless affirmatives sacrifice solvency or links to the topic for framework preempts, which make me believe that they are incomplete. The best way to debate in front of me is to slow down, refute arguments, and explain to me what you want me to vote on. If you are just blasting blocks into your computer you probably won't be happy with the result of the debate.

I am most comfortable in "policy vs policy" or "policy vs k" rounds, but believe in my ability to give a coherent RFD no matter the style of debate.

Ask any questions before or after the round/tournament and I will be happy to answer.

please at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

expericence:

Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Coaching:

Lansing (2021-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)

top level:

- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted

- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased

- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized

topicality:

- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for

- I default to competing interpretations

- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this

k affs:

- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary

disads:

- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful

counterplans:

- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory

- delay counterplans are cheating

- textual and functional is always good

- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise

- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team

- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar

kritiks:

- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview

- specific links are better than generic ones

- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt

case:

- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption

shawnee mission south '24 (❤️)

university of kentucky ‘28

maddiesdebate.email@gmail.com

i can flow.

i will vote you down on cops, israel, genocide, any of the isms, or death good

read almost explicitly all K’s (no pomo) in high school except for the fall of senior year — idc what u read

being mean in cross is icky

be kind and smart for good speaks

also i have no idea what this hs topic is so don’t expect i know ur jargon

for online:

speak a bit slower.

i won’t penalize you for not sending analytics but it’ll make it easier for me to process what you say if we are online.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Hiyyyyyy! :)

rcav.debate@gmail.com

Any pronouns

Gemini

Updated August 2023

For in person tournaments:

Please wear a mask at all times, including during speeches. I don't want covid.

NOTE:

If you're looking to do college debate feel free to reach out and ask about Iowa debate with the email I have above! I'd love to answer any questions!

TLDR:

I do exclusively K debate, currently at the University of Iowa going on my 8th year of debate. I've mostly run trans studies, queer theory, and antiblackness. Yes I can still judge a policy debate. Poorly executed framework/K debates from either side are not fun to watch (notes below on how you can persuade me). Top level instruction is important.

General:

Obviously my job as your judge is to evaluate the round as fairly as possible. However, every judge has their biases, so I'll do my best to explain mine here:

4 years of debate at Northside (Chicago/CDL), 2016-2020. I debated on China, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Currently in my fourth year debating at Iowa - I've debated on Alliances, Antitrust, Personhood and Nukes. I was a lab leader during Summer of 2023 for Fiscal Redistribution so I have a decent understanding of the topic.

Most of my higher-level experience has been with K debate, so that's what I'm most familiar/comfortable with. I've had the most experience with trans studies, queer theory, and antiblackness but I have a basic enough handle on almost anything else you can name. Maybe a little less familiar with obscure pomo theory but I get the basics. Obviously if what you're running is super out there, make sure that you are able to thoroughly explain your theory of power and specific links to the aff (which honestly applies to anything you're running).

Top-level stuff: Although I have thoughts about different arguments in debate, please go for whatever you feel comfortable running. Adaptation can be important, but over adapting and going for something you aren't familiar or comfortable with can often hinder you more than help. It's my job to evaluate the round fairly.

Also I personally think that more than 5ish off is unnecessary and uneducational. I'll probably still flow all of them but be willing to give the aff more slack when it comes to new 1AR extrapolations if the neg is running an obscene number of arguments. This is especially true if you read half-arguments in the 1NC that are blown up in the block - think one card K's that barely have a link/impact/alt.

I'm somewhere in between being 'big picture' and being 'techy'/flow centric, but as a judge will put large emphasis on the former. Telling me how to think about/evaluate arguments and what my role is as a judge will get you far.

Asking for a marked doc means that cards were marked, not that they didn't get to every card in the doc. If you want to ask which cards were read, you need to run cross-x or prep.

Usually I'm not looking at docs when flowing speeches and I flow on paper (this is probably different if it is an online debate because I find it somewhat harder to flow over zoom). I do take notes during cross-x, and think it is often a really important part of debates - referencing significant moments from cross-x is a good practice.

I fundamentally think disclosure theory/new affs bad is a true argument (absent specific reasons for opacity, etc.), but that doesn't mean I will auto vote for theory. Just felt like a strange enough disposition to mention.

T (not FW/USFG): I tend to find judging these debates quite boring in most instances, but if you think it'll be a strong argument please go for it. If you are talking about super specific acronyms make sure you clarify things that might not be obvious. Also make sure you're still doing impact comparison - it is hard to evaluate a T debate when both sides are extending their own impacts without interaction with the other teams arguments.

CPs/Theory: I actually kind of like a good, cheaty, cleverly crafted counterplan with a good net benefit. Condo is probably good up to a certain point, process CPs are fine as long as there's a net ben. I think judges are less willing to vote on PIC/Ks now for some reason and I disagree with that. But also if you're the aff you should obviously still say they're bad.

Random thought, it's called a "counterplan" not a "see-pee" this annoys me for no reason lol

K's: Pretty much covered this above, but yeah I like Ks. I think the best ways to beat a K are some combination of framework, a perm, and alt takeouts. As much as I like the K, I'm very willing to vote you down if you don't properly extend links to the aff, alt solvency (unless you've got a reason why you don't need an alt), etc. This is more of an observation that a judge philosophy, but kicking the alt (particularly in K v K debates but in others as well) seems more often than not to lead to teams losing. I generally think that teams that try to read bad preempts affs when they hit "k teams" are hurting themselves more than helping. It's much easier to win going for the big stick impacts youre used to if that's what you do.

F/W v. K Aff: I personally tend to believe that debate should be a space where debaters have the opportunity to performatively explore how different forms of knowledge production and political engagement shape the way they occupy debate, which is something that can take many forms. This doesn't mean that I won't vote on framework (especially if the team running the K aff isn't properly answering it), however, it does mean that you should be engaging with the affirmative and giving reasons why debate is better off with a traditional way of engaging the resolution. I think that clash-based impacts to framework are better than education-based impacts to framework because it makes it easier to weigh your standards against the aff. I used to think fairness was an internal link but more recently think its the only inherent impact to framework that isn't dependent on winning some larger argument. A TVA can be powerful, but you should probably have some sort of solvency advocate that ties the TVA to the ability to engage with knowledge/the debate space in a similar way to the affirmative. i.e. I'm much more likely to vote for a carded TVA than a two-second blip or suggestion of a potential topical aff. That doesn't just mean "the TVA does something vaguely good for X group!", especially if the aff is directly addressing the way that knowledge/discourse shape those policies in the first place.

A general note on K aff's too: I love it when teams do performative things. I've done all kinds of stuff in my affs, and honestly I think an aff that has less ev but is more performatively interesting is much better than a wall of cards. Multiple affs that I've written have been like two cards and some poetry at conversational speed.

K v. K: You do you. I've had many of these debates myself, so I enjoy judging them. I am starting to think perms are kind of fake, although that does not mean the aff shouldn't go for one.

Ethics Challenges: Since this seems to be happening way more frequently now for some reason, a few notes on what an ethics violation is and what it means:

An ethics challenge refers to something like a miscut piece of evidence, and amounts to stopping the debate. If it is called an ethics violation, the round stops - it is not debated out (unless tab decides otherwise, but if it is up to my discretion I will stop the debate).

Ethics violations are sometimes a necessity in situations of bankrupt research practices, but in my opinion is not a "strategy" for you to be prepped to go for if you think you are losing a debate. Posing such a challenge will result in me contacting tab about appropriate measures - whether that means me making the decision or the tab director depends on the tournament and circumstances. Some examples of ethics violations are internal omissions of evidence, straw mans, etc.

I understand that often times (especially in high school debate) citational or miscutting errors are not intentional or done with malice, and so please note I will not hold it against you personally if such a violation occurs. In the event of this situation, I will award a 28.8/28.7 to the team who wins and a 28.6/28.5 to the team who loses (again, absent intervention from tab/egregious violations that result in me awarding minimum speaks allowed).

Speaks: I try to start at a 28 and add or deduct points from there based on nuance, clarity, etc. I'd say on average my points generally range from 28.6 - 29.2 for teams in the middle to upper range of the tournament.

I've never 'cleared' before and I likely won't unless it becomes necessary - if you are going so fast that it compromises your ability to speak clearly and effectively communicate your arguments, I will simply stop flowing.

Good luck, and have fun!

GTA at KU Fall 2021

former NDT/CEDA debater for the University of Missouri - Kansas City

I'd like to be on the email chain.

I will do my best to adjust to your style and evaluate what is presented.

I enjoy judging debates.

I'm generally fine with speed, but please slow down for tags and authors. I flow on paper. If you spread full speed through a CP with 5 planks, I will be struggling to know what it does.

I think debate is usually about story telling, and I often find myself more comfortable voting for debaters who have provided a better and more complete story. This also means I am more hesitant to vote on arguments that just don't make sense to me - this seems obvious but I feel like it comes up more frequently than expected. I need to understand your argument well enough to explain to the other team why they lost a debate on it.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful things.

---------

Kritiks - I like a good kritik. I usually find myself more persuaded by kritiks that have an alternative in the 2NR with lots of examples and explanation for why it resolves the impact. I think policy affs often lack a robust defense of utilitarianism, and I enjoy listening to arguments about why we should use another method to make ethical decisions.

I would also encourage you to:

- contextualize your links to the affirmative

- explain why you control / solve / turn / moot the 1AC's impacts

- illustrate why the aff is factually incorrect, in a way that is consistent with your criticism -- usually think it's a little awkward when the K about epistemology contradicts your case defense from xyz think tank -- I would encourage you to read smart case arguments or be ready to defend "we're negative and get to do that"

I usually think K affs that 1) do something or advocate that something should be done 2) have some relation to the topic - are the most persuasive. If that's not your aff, just be sure to explain why you have good reasons not to.

Topicality / FW - Interpretations should be strategic and well justified. If you go for T, be sure to have clear impacts and weigh them. Reasonability vs competing interpretations is up for y'all to decide. In FW v K debates, I think specific and clear offense in the last speech usually ends up deciding my ballot. Affirmatives without a plan text should be sure to have significant offense - and explain why it outweighs clash or whatever.

Theory - Sure. Be in-depth, specific, and weigh the impacts of each interpretation. 3-4+ condo is probably a lot in front of me, especially if there is a clear in-round abuse story.

DAs - Works for me. Tell a good story and do lots of impact comparison.

CPs - Counterplans are cool and create interesting strategies. I probably lean slightly affirmative on most of the theory here, but could be convinced otherwise. That being said, strategic PICs are often very persuasive to me. If you read a big multi-plank CP, you should particularly emphasize what it does and how it works. Otherwise, we may not be on same page at the end of the debate when you assume that I understand why plank #7 solves the 3rd internal link of the second scenario on the first advantage.

Also, negatives should do more case debate. I am often convinced that plans wouldn't really do anything.

Speaker points:

DO:

- funny or particularly insightful remarks during the debate

- send speech docs quickly and effectively (for example, 1NR sent by the end of 2NC CX)

- signpost well during your speech

- make smart, strategic decisions during the debate

DON'T:

- steal prep

- be overly rude or mean

he/him delphdebate@gmail.com

year 10 of debate

coach at wake

former LRCH and Kansas Debater

TLDR:

When it comes to evaluating debates, two things are the most important for me:

1. Clear judge instructions in the rebuttals of how I should filter offense and arguments made in the round. Impact and Link framing are a must. if I can't explain the argument myself, I probably can't vote on it.

2. Impact comparison and clear reason why I should prioritize impacts in the round between the neg and aff. Each argument should have a claim - warrant - impact for me to evaluate it as such.

Use these to filter the rest of my paradigm and general in round perception.

General

I consider myself to be pretty flexible when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debated more critically but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met with speaker points that reflect, so don't be an assho|e.

Most of my debate experience was in critical debates on both the aff and neg (I was a 1A/2N), but I’m not unfamiliar with the technical aspects of policy debates.

I’m probably not the best for Topicality debates in general when it comes to plan-based policy debates and less likely to vote on Framework vs plan-less affs if going for impacts such as fairness/competitive equity or predictability. I generally lean more into truth over tech in most debates, but tech is important for impact comparison.

for college: still formulating how I understand and evaluate as a judge, so making sure I clearly understand what I should evaluate without intervention from me comes down to how you go for your arguments. The less judge intervention I feel like I have to do, the happier we are all in the post-round RFD.

——————————————————————————————

Truth over tech/Tech over truth? - Depends, i view myself evaluating truth before tech concessions but that isn’t always the case. I think technical concession are important for evaluating impact debates, so utilize both these to your advantage.

Framework on the Neg? - I’ll evaluate any negative arguments about the meta of debate. If you win your model of debate is good and the aff in question doesn’t access it then generally I’m pretty neutral on Framework arguments. Same for K’s with framing questions, the way you want me to evaluate a prior question should be framed as such.

10 off? I’d prefer if you didn’t, gish galloping is a fascist tactic.

Theory arguments? I believe theory arguments are heavily underutilized in high school debates. I evaluate conditionality and presumption debates as much as I evaluate K vs Framework. I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot

K affirmatives

I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve.

Performance

If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it.

FW on the neg

I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolutely vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc.

K’s

Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams: FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K.

Any other questions just ask before the round, "If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."

Hello all, my name is Maddie (she/her). Add me to the email chain: madeline.doyle0628@gmail.com

Shawnee Mission East '24

University of Kansas '28

Feel free to contact me with questions about the round, I am more than happy to give more in-depth feedback.

I debated competitively for 3 years in high school.

You can go fast in front of me, I don't care just make sure you're clear. I will clear you if you are not. Slow down for tags if you choose to spread, I will dock you speaker points if you don't. Also- if your opponents don't want you to spread, please don't. I want to make the debate space as friendly as possible, and that starts with basic kindness and consideration.

TL;DR:

-I'm very tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I went for cc good a lot my senior year if that tells you anything.

-If you are being strategic and playing the game, you are more likely to win.

-I'd like to see more judge instruction, I don't see this enough. Write my ballot for me.

-I will default to policymaking, if you want different, you have to tell me.

Flow: Off-time roadmaps please, for ALL speeches! Tell me the order you want me to flow in. Try and keep the flow relatively clean, although I know this can be hard. If you decide to skip around I might be salty, but I won't vote you down for it. Just signpost and let me know what you are responding to.

Args: DO NOT drop a crucial argument, especially if you're aff. I presume neg. I am fine with anything that you run. Be able to answer T. I honestly will vote on anything. I love impact turns I think they are incredibly strategic and most people are really bad at answering them.

CPs: I will vote on any CP. I'm good with competition debates just make sure you give clear warrants. I went for POI a lot in high school so if you cook up a nice competition text I will like you. 2NC CPs are fine, just make sure you can justify it. I will judge-kick the CP if you tell me to.

DAs: These are good. Make sure you extend all parts of the DA. I like turns-case, I think it is something that should be utilized more. Please for the love of god do impact calc.

Topicality: I love T. I think that when done well it serves its purpose. Make sure you are specific with your impacts to T, don't just give me some internal links and say that's an impact, I see this too much. Side note- I think that the topic this year has great T ground for most of the novice affs, so if you haven't considered running it, I would give it a try sometime.

Ks: I am somewhat familiar with the lit bases. It never hurts to explain the thesis of the K and the theory of power tho. Your alt can be something funny, but you have to make it make sense and give it some sort of solvency. I will judge kick the alt if you tell me to. I'm comfortable voting on just FW.

Theory: I think theory debates are fine. Theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I am undecided about condo. I went for it on the aff in high school and responded to it on the neg (I was both a 2A and 2N) and I think it’s a valid argument. Make sure you analyze your theory argument heavily because I want to know that you understand what you are running. I honestly prefer substance debates more, but I will vote on most theory arguments if they are logical.

Neg v K: I prefer fairness as an impact but I will vote for clash. I think that T is a prior question. I am good to have in the back for presumption. I operate on an offense-defense paradigm here.

K v K: This is always a fun debate. Perms are good for aff. Please analyze the cards more here, as I don't think you can over-analyze K cards. Specific links are amaze.

Don't forget to have fun!

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

I took two years off and now I'm back working with Greenhill + doing some judging for USC

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison . judge instruction and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

Having judged pretty consistently this year after time off, I think I can more readily identify my preferences in args and how to deploy them.

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T:I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I find some varieties more cheaty than others: Word PICs, Conditions CPs, Delay, etc. Process CPs probably not cheating but not my fave to vote for. Also please slow down when debating CP competition. Basically, I'm not the best for CPs that do the whole aff.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

Wake Forest 2014-2018

Email: nedgidley@gmail.com

Texas 2023 Update

Hello! I’m excited to be back judging after a brief hiatus. I had a bad hand injury earlier this fall; two bigger implications of this:
1. Extremely limited topic knowledge—I have not judged on the topic.
2. Flowing somehow even worse—I’m still adjusting to writing/typing with my right hand so I will be needing extra time to flow.

Pre-Northwestern 2021 Update (too many updates, need to clean up this mess)

Topic seems big and complex. I don't know very much so I would err on the side of explaining extra.

ADA/NDT/CEDA Update 2021

Top level--make choices. Prioritize arguments and explain why they matter. Reading comments like this is annoying but I have judged both policy and clash debates where both sides played a game of chicken except neither side caved so the judges just had to evaluate a bunch with almost no comparison, weighing, or calculus. This important for rebuttals but can start early: does the 1nc really need ConCon with 8 words highlighted? Does the aff need 3 advantages? You could extend both DAs quickly in the block or pick one and win it. Also I like a good case debate (realize harder with teams breaking new stuff).

Online debate--[grumpy flow rant]--I know everyone says slow down but easier said when you aren't the one giving a speech that has to respond to a lot. With that said, I do feel that in almost every debate it would be beneficial if people slowed down on analytics/tags. I think I do flow slower than others, but a benefit of online debate is being able to follow ev on my 2nd monitor. It's the non-card parts of the speech that cause problems. Some send no analytics, which would be fine except very quick perms/counter-interps. Others send the analytics and then just blaze through them because they are in the doc. Even if you slow down a tad saying these and give a tiny bit of pen time, it is very helpful (and adds very little time to the speech).

Cards--I really do like them regardless if it is a DA debate, clash debate, T debate etc. I want to reward qualified and specific evidence. But please don't answer a CX question about a warrant with "we have ev."

Time--would love to minimize the time that is neither speeches nor prep time. I really do like to spend the time to look over my flows thoroughly and read over cards. A lot of my decisions take right up till the end and I appreciate having more time (rather than less).

For Northwestern ‘20/Alliances

I did a tiny bit of executive and space work but did not judge any debates so I’m catching up on the debate meta. I have done some research for alliances.

I’m interested to see how much affs do on this topic. I think that consensus will settle somewhere between a pole on one side of affs blowing up alliances (Bandow’s dream) and tiny affs that tinker on the other pole but we will see. Trump seems to loom over.

Online Debate

Slowing down a bit and being clearer helps. Cross-ex is trickier: 4 people talking at the same time was not great with everyone in the same room but I think it’s even worse over Zoom(or comparable video debate platform).

Prefs/Top Level Stuff

Tech or truth?

Lean tech: if I flow a claim, warrant, and impact for an argument you should answer it. Like most judges, I have a somewhat arbitrary gut check for an argument that’s too absurd to vote on even if dropped; but it’s better to answer an arg that to bank on me to find something absurd.

Policy or K?

I made policy arguments as a debater. I lean policy on most arguments in a given clash debate; if I were a debater with an affinity for critical arguments I would not pref a judge like myself highly. But given the tech note above, policy debaters should be wary of just saying “fairness” and dropping every critical argument.

Cards

Love ‘em. I like when these are read. If you can explain why I should prefer your cards on important issues (nuanced warrants, they assume the other side’s best arg, qualifications, etc.) that goes a long way. Demonstrating that you worked hard to assemble the evidence you have and to come up with the strategy you went for is something I want to reward.

More Specific Things

Debating the Case

Love the case debate. A lot of judge philosophies have phrases along the lines of “lost art” in their judge philosophies and I will say I like a good case debate. This goes for a policy or if people are feeling bold critical affirmative. If you want to go for a case turn in the 2NR, I think you need some extra calculus and “even ifs”/tie-breakers in the 2NR. For link turns, I think normally this would be a timeframe argument or maybe a structural reason why you control the impact. For impact turns, normally this is some external offense and then mitigation of the original impact (could be an inevitability debate with a “now key/the sooner the better” warrant or a reason why you internal link turn the worst part of their scenario). Numbering args isn’t always possible but when the 1NC can introduce this (and the order doesn’t get jumbled in the debate) it is a thing of beauty.

Topicality

T cards aren’t the most exciting to cut but they win debates (for both sides). Defining words is important including counterinterpretations. You should meet your counterinterpretation.

Not of a fan of what Bricker calls “planicality”—word salad plantexts written around topic words to make winning a clear violation tough. I think in a lot of these cases, it might just be better for the neg to punish the aff for not having an advocate for anything close to the plantext and using that for CPs (explained below). Related to this, I think plantext in a vacuum is a phrase that gets thrown around with little to no explanation. If you can explain the relationship between mandates and affects in order to frame how I should view T vs. solvency than I am more likely to be persuaded by it.

Counterplans

I think generally I would describe myself as neg leaning but aff sympathetic. Arguments about fairness are important, but I think the literature surrounding an advocacy really shapes of lot for me. I have a hard time telling the negative why they should be required to have a strict advocate for the counterplan if the aff has a plantext that is not supported by a similar advocate.

PICs—like them. Especially if something is specified or in the plantext/advocacy statement.

Summers 94 CPs (counterplans that rely on should/resolved to be immediate/certain)—harder to win for the neg. Good evidence plus a set-up in cross-ex or a cross-application or a theory argument somewhere else can help.

DAs

It’s important for both sides to relate the aff offense and the DA and weigh them. Turns case/DA is important but I prefer a more direct route: e.g. “the link turns advantage 2…” or “the aff solves prolif” rather than “warming turns prolif” (more indirect). Cards also helpful there.

The link is important; otherwise the DA is irrelevant to the aff. On alliances, I think the neg needs to be weary of reading the link booster cards like “smaller shifts matter” or “any perception” because I think that jeopardizes many (of what I assume will be) UQ stories of “Trump rhetoric doesn’t matter; treaty obligations haven’t changed” if the link isn’t about changing the treaty/agreement.

Clash debates

Really don’t like a long 2NC overview (on framework vs a K aff or on the K vs a policy aff) and then tons of the line by line is just “that was above.” I am sure you have spent time coming up with the correct phrasing for your blocks but if you even just move that explanation to the correct part of the debate, it really helps the flow.

I mentioned above that I love hard work and specific strategies. The more recycled a speech feels, the less likely I am to vote for it. I also like cards. Strategies without cards are not great in front of me. These debates normally have a lot of layers (framework, perms, impacts etc.). That makes this debates difficult (and muddled) because you have to both “win” a lot of important arguments and also explain how those implicate the rest of the debate. A good formula I was told for this was “our link is X, our impact is y, we solve with the alt b/c z, even if they win [their best argument] we still win.”

Other Stuff

Don’t be Terrible

While this applies to blatant behaviors like racism or card clipping, it also applies to just interacting with others generally. We are a set of nerds who get together on weekends to read words off of our laptops quickly. Going hard against your opponent’s argument does not require you to go hard against your opponent. Lying (misdisclosing, misleading, misrepresenting, clipping etc.) is detrimental to fun debates.

Things Outside of the Round

Harder to adjudicate on these. I also haven’t been at tournaments the last two years so I’m sure I’ve missed some community developments.

Reciting This Philosophy in Round

Does anyone like this? I’m sure there are silly things I’ve typed here (maybe a typo); please don’t. I haven’t heard an RFD that went along the lines of “I really loved how you kept calling me by my first name. Then you also told me about what I had written on T in my judge philosophy so I couldn’t vote you down.”

Inserting Rehighlights

Seems to be contentious. I would say I don’t care if you read or insert it but whenever you do so it’s important to explain what you are revealing and why that matters. Normally, I think these are best for contextualization. If you rehighlight paragraphs of text or read aloud every word the other side didn’t read then the gist of it is “see their card says other words” which isn’t very helpful.

Have fun!

Currently a coach and PhD student at The University of Kansas.

Add me to the chain plz and thank you DerekHilligoss@gmail.com

for college add rockchalkdebate@gmail.com as well

TL;DR do what you do and do it well. Don't let my preferences sway you away from doing what you want.

The biggest thing for me is that I value good impact framing/calc. If you aren't explaining why your impacts matter more then your opponents you are leaving it up for me or the other team to decide.

Framework: Go for whatever version of framework you like but I tend to think it should interact with the aff at some level. If you give the 2NC/2NR and make no reference to the aff you will find it harder to win my ballot.

Planless affs: The one note I wanna make outside of FW notes is that you have to be able to answer the "what do you do" question no matter how silly it may seem. If I don't know what the aff does after the 1AC/CX that's gonna put you in a rough spot. I don't think this means you have to do anything but you should have a good justification for why you don't have to.

Theory: condo (probably) to a certain extent is good and counterplans should (probably) have solvency advocates. I have no strong opinions just tell me how to feel.
*new strong opinion* going for condo is not a remedy for being a bad 2A---

Topicality: limits for the sake of limits probably bad?

Counterplans: cool? Do it

Disads: The only thing I wanna note here is highlight your cards better. I don't wanna have to read 30 crappy cards to get the story of the disad and it makes it easier for the aff to win with a few solid cards.

Kritiks: Specific links go a long way. This doesn't mean it has to be exactly about the plan but your application will do better than a generic "law bad" card. Applying your theory to the aff's advantages in a way that takes out solvency will make your lives so much easier.

For the aff FW I think a well developed FW argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will do more for you than fairness/limits impacts.

Random things:

If you are unclear I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. I'll make it apparent I'm not flowing to let you know you need to adjust still.

If you clip you will lose.

"reinsert card here"- nope :) read it- this is a communication activity not a robot activity.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful and can even be outright genocidal, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, arms sales to israel are good, increasing police funding is good, etc. please ask my questions before the round starts if you have any about this. but the below paragraphs might answer some of them.

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

easton.logback@gmail.com --- any pronouns except it/its

TL;DR: Do lots of judge instruction. Explain how arguments interact. Write my ballot for me.

Meta-Level Stuff:

I have spent a lot of time thinking about debate; an approximation of my old thoughts can be found in my old paradigm, linked at the bottom.

I try not to let these biases influence my decisions, i.e., to only vote on arguments and analysis explicitly made in the round (this is the obligatory 'I'm tech over truth', 'read the arguments you're best at and not what you think I would like' disclaimer in the paradigm).

I try to prevent intervention by, at the end of every debate, noting every argument made in the 2NR/2AR, and resolving them solely in the context of other arguments made in the round. This usually takes me a really long time.

To make my decisions not take as long, and lower the chance of intervention, you should do as much analysis as you can for me. The final rebuttals should:
1---Identify what arguments you're ahead on, and explain why they win you the round (these are your 'win conditions').
2---Explain why your 'win conditions' make your opponents 'win conditions' irrelevant.

Your opponent will probably win at least one argument. My decision is far easier if, instead of just spamming defense and pretending you're ahead on everything, you explicitly call out why whatever argument your opponent wins does not matter.

The less you make a ton of arguments with minimal analysis, and the more you completely develop one argument, the easier it is for me to vote to you.

Thoughts On Specific Arguments:

I have a lot of them, and they change constantly.

Ask me before or after a round if you have a specific question. If you want the general idea of my thoughts on or experience with specific arguments, check out my old paradigm.

Good luck!

SF Roosevelt '21 ೄྀ࿐ ˊˎ Wake Forest '25

Current Affiliations: New York Urban Debate League

she/her (1A/2N)

luckettjazmyn@gmail.com

╰┈➤ Time yourself

If you are interested in debating for Wake Forest, don't hesitate to reach out about scholarships and debate opportunities.

Miscellaneous Notes:

- If you have a fun/silly strategy or file you have been waiting to break, please do it in front of me

- Be funny, or don't if that's your thing, be nice or be petty if that's your thing --- be more casual if that is what is comfortable for you

- If you feel more comfortable with a camera off instead of on during an online debate, that is fine :)

• I will vote on death good, spark, wipeout, Baudrillard, and most of the other arguments everyone hates (and I would love to judge it)
• I read almost exclusively settler colonialism and afropessimism in high school and college, but I coach policy style Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debaters. I am also fairly well versed on current political issues, the status of the government, and potential global military conflicts/tensions. I do not have a strong side/debate frame that I will adjudicate under. Everything is up for debate.

• 1AR --> 2AR consistency is good, new 2AR arguments are bad

Other Thoughts:

I try my best to eliminate personal bias and offer both teams a fair and equal opportunity to achieve the ballot, but here are a few thoughts that may be helpful:

• permutations should be explained, examples/what would the world look like? I won't vote on a perm that the 2NR literally concedes if the 2AR just says, "extend permutation do both, they dropped it... [insert argument not at all about the permutation here]"
• 2NR/2AR that sits on 3 arguments > 2NR/2AR that goes for 20 conceded arguments
• making an actual argument against what the other team said > spending time reading a bad theory block
• new 2NC CPs/DAs are interesting, if the aff suddenly links after the 2ac, go ahead.
• live to solve other team's impacts > future generations
• literally anything > 5/6 minute presumption 2NR
• claim -> warrant -> impact or it's not an argument
• Don't ask me for a 30
• I will never ask for a card doc, you should never ask me to look at a card. What if you just explained the card???? and made an argument?????? (If someone is like calling ev ethics or saying your ev says something super problematic then yes, I'll look) but I could care less if you cut the greatest card on agricultural development causing climate change published in the 21st century. Show me the greatest arguments and warrants in the 21st century that agricultural development causes climate change).
• I tend to make decisions by pinpointing the negative's central offense and then deciding if the affirmative resolves it or if the affirmative solves to the point that the neg's argument doesn't matter, in every debate I will write a ballot for both teams then copy paste/vote for the one that makes the most sense into tabroom.
• If I give an RFD in less than 10 minutes, don't be offended. I already know how I'm voting 80% of the time within 2 minutes of the 2AR ending. Faster RFD=More time for you to eat and rest.

╔══《✧》══╗

Speaker Points:

29.6+ --- potential champ

29.3-29.5 --- late elims

29-29.2 --- mid elims

28.7-28.9 --- may clear

28.5-28.7 --- go even

28.0-28.5 --- other

╚══《✧》══╝

Johnisthe4@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence Free State and the University of Kansas. I flow and decide debates solely on that flow. But because debate is time-constrained communication, and perfect, technical dissection when judging is often impossible under that framework, I have some general defaults and beliefs I will use unless argued otherwise by the debaters:

- Clarity and pace are important. I won’t decide debates based on the text of the speech doc but by how much of what you said made it onto my flow. I will read the text of evidence as the debate is occurring to check for clipping, but otherwise will not follow analytics digitally.

- Words matter. While easily defeated and detrimental to speaker points, arguments not developed with warrants and impacts are still arguments. I won’t use any arbitrary cookie-cutter to exclude the words debaters say, including eye-roll-worthy theory arguments termed “voting issues” and uncontested new arguments prior to the 2AR. My understanding of an argument as communicated is the basis for its consideration.

- Argument narrative is important. To easily and efficiently defeat undeveloped arguments, maintain narrative explanation and consistency. Only when debating is equal will evidence supersede narration in my decision-making.

- Default to judge kick and competing interpretations.

- I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the debate or when I was not present.

- I err on the side of continuing productive debate should ethics issues arise, such as scratching the card.

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

jackson.n.mills@gmail.com

Little Rock Central '24

Do what do you best, and have fun. I don't have any ideological preferences on content or form and try to adjudicate debates as strictly off the flow as possible. The only exception to this is problematic/violent arguments (racism good, genocide good, endorsements of self-harm, etc.) which will result in an L and the lowest speaks possible. I don't consider arguments such as wipeout or the death K to be in the same vein of argumentation described above, assuming they are not run in a way that would make anyone feel unsafe.

My debate background is largely critical, so I have a much more intuitive understanding of how Clash and K v K debates work. This is not to say I hold any animosity towards traditional policy arguments, but rather to say that extra explaining would be appreciated in these debates. I think I have a pretty good understanding of topicality versus policy affs, as well as the more common counterplans and DAs, but complicated counterplan competition debates and other things with that vibe will be where explanation is especially important. I think judgekick is fine but please say the words if you want me to do it.

Tech generally outweighs truth (see the above exceptions), but I must flow a claim, warrant, and implication for something to be evaluated as an argument. I default to being flow-centric as a means to evaluate all debates, but am willing to evaluate them through an alternative manner if presented and won. Debates should be about what the debaters say, so my defaults/predispositions are usually malleable. Judge instruction is by far the most important thing you should be doing, as it helps me to evaluate the debate through the lens you want me to rather than leave me to my own devices.

Misc. Things:

--speed is fine, but don't sacrifice clarity! the chance of me clearing you is extremely low (awkward) so just prioritize it

--don't be a bad person to your opponents – I understand some pettiness, standing on business, etc. but am not okay with you just being disrespectful for the sake of it.

--I tend to look somewhat tired/apathetic during debates, so please don't take this as a sign I am not engaged. I appreciate the effort and time debaters put into the activity and will do my best when adjudicating all debates.

--please call me jackson, not judge

--feel free to ask any/all questions after a decision - I know how much I have benefited from the advice given in RFDs and want to do whatever I can to help make your time in this activity more valuable

she/her

debated @ lawrence free state, debating @ the university of kansas, coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow

yes email chain: aaronjpersinger@gmail.com

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than most technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and let people know if their evidence has an ethics violation. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game.

Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status squo and the NEG says that change is bad.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not.

Enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and uses that story to implicate other portions of the debate.

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time.

Hidden Aspec is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding Aspec will have a speaker point implosion.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (I go by my initials if that helps with pronunciation.)

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Extempt addendum:

Debate in whatever style you're good at. I adapt to you.

This is not policy. I am not good for Baudrillard or death good when you have 2 minutes of speech time

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the flow with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

10 minutes before start time:

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to make arguments.

---Label flows in the 1NC.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads. Or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments ONLY if the 1NC is big or positions change substantially in the block.

---I don't want to hear my name in speeches.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate. I have no way of verifying them, and I am not comfortable rendering judgement on the moral character of a high schooler.

Please avoid:

---re-reading constructive blocks in rebuttals

---deliberately avoiding line-by-line

---spreading your blocks at full speed

---demanding a 30

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---Aff:

---well developed/highlighted advantages > impact spam.

3---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better.

4---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links and consistently articulate the same theory of power. Reading links to the plan, drawing lines from the 1AC, and articulating turns case analysis will substantially increase your speaks and likelihood of winning.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

5---Topicality: My thoughts here are mostly conventional, except:

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say, and strong generics help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff is our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

6---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Having a topic-relevant solvency advocate will make me more sympathetic to CPs that derive competition from immediacy/certainty.

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

7---Case: No aff solves. The fact neg teams are often reluctant to prove that is a critical mistake. Good case debating wins debates and will lead me to boost your speaks.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

8---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

I consider K affs that defend impact-turnable positions more persuasive on T.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue" if the neg kicks it.

9---Framework: Go for whichever impact you prefer, though my personal take is that skills impacts are inferior to fairness standards. I find presumption compelling.

T could be different from framework, but any conceptual distinction between the two seems difficult to maintain given their colloquial interchangeability.

10---CX: I flow it. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

11---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

12---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages. That is premeditated cheating, which will not be tolerated.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Winner of last year's CFL in policy debate!!!!!

(Assistant) Coach @ Shawnee Mission South

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is amust. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Jayden Sampat

they/them

yes, put me on the email chain: jsamdebate@gmail.com

email chain >> speech drop (but do what you must)

Barstow '24 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water, nato, econ inequality)

Wake Forest '28

if you have any accommodation requests email me or ask me before the round. also email me abt any questions you have before the round

TLDR

you do you. I enjoy all arguments and styles and i will evaluate everything evenly as long as it isn't a harmful arg (i will give u a loss and tank your speaks for any intentional misgendering, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc). have fun, don't stress- ik that’s easier said than done but do your best and lmk if there's any way I can help make debate a good learning experience for you.

basic things

-most of what I've learned is from Lucia Scott, Alaina Walberg, and Maeve Ella

-speed is good, but clarity is better. if you can spread really fast, go for it, but make sure you are clear. i will clear you 3x before I give up flowing. and I have auditory processing issues so I may clear you more than a different judge

-open cx is fine, but I don't want you to not let your partner ask any questions during their cx

-JUDGE INSTRUCTION. please spend a few seconds in your rebuttal speeches writing out my ballot for me. what impact should i put first in this debate and why? if u don’t do this then idk what i should evaluate first so even if it’s just a little bit, pls do it.

-ask questions after the round. i want to help you understand things. also feel free to email me after the round for any questions

Preferences:

The biggest thing is have fun and learn something. I would rather watch a round where you all are enjoying yourselves than one where it looks like everyone is about to lose their temper, and in general you will take a lot more from the round if you’re enjoying it. also, respect others and yourself- debate is an educative space where we all can learn, pls don’t ruin that for some by being disrespectful, misogynistic, homophobic, etc (i will fill out my ballot then and there and give u lowest possible speaks)

Topicality:

I am an insufferable T debater. I love topicality. especially against clearly untopical affs. its so fun. do what you want to do here and ill sit back and enjoy the show. also love t substantial

DA

Love a good disad debate. Also love when an aff straight turns it. any da is fun to judge

CP

Love counterplans too, especially ones with a case turn as the net benefit. dont forget sufficiency framing and make sure you impact turn the other adv if going for an adv cp. not the best for a bunch of process cps, i get lost in theory debates pretty easily esp if you are spreading theory blocks.

Kritiks:

my favorite part of debate but also probably means i hold you to a higher threshold of explanation than i do on other off case positions. am most familiar with cap, queer theory, Baudrillard, and biopolitics, but as long as u explain ur worldview im good. if you are going to go for the k in the last speech, please know what your alternative does - unless ur going for fw. Im also down to judge a good framework debate, as this is what my partner and I often go for. make sure you do impact calc on here because that will factor greatly into my decision (if your impact is structural violence, i need you to tell me why i should weigh that over the aff’s nebulous extinction impacts. usually something along lines of “aff isn’t probable now and our constant desire to avoid their extinction claims results in the worsening of structural violence”)

Case:

i know this is on everyone’s paradigm but case is underrated, and i think all teams should do more work here. i love watching impact turn debates on case, and will definitely vote on them. i also will vote neg on presumption, assuming the neg successfully constructs those args out in the 2nr. my 1nr is usually only case, so id love to see a good case analysis, even if its only a couple minutes

Speaker Points

I start with a 28.5 for speaks and move up or down from there. 29 means I think you should break, 29.5+ means I think you should be in late elims.

I have given one 30 before, and it was to the best middle school debater I've ever seen

lunakansasdebate@gmail.com

email chains please

You should aim to be clear in front of me. Double what you think is clear enough.

KU '26

"judge" or "Luna"

Do whatever. I'm an educator first. Maximize your chances of winning by arguing with my ballot not your opponent.

Final rebuttals are most likely to win if they start with: "Our argument is X. Their best argument is Y. Even if they win Y, we have still won the debate on X for Z reason."

Feel free to email or ask any questions.

Ev ethics (L25) is skipping more than 5 words in a card, misciting author or article title, cards cut missing at least 1 sentence, or cards cut that don't start and end with the start and end of paragraphs in the article.

It is an evidence ethics issue when not better explained by: an accident that results in leaving off an author, an accident that produces minor discrepancies in the article title, an accident that results in a missing letter, single word, or instance of punctuation at the beginning/end of a paragraph, or discrepancies better explained by the existence of multiple versions of the article. In essence, close is close enough, but wrong is never enough.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. Positions that could have been read identically on previous topics are less persuasive to me.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

OEHS ‘24, USC ’28

mtroup1221@gmail.com

Feel free to run any argument you want! Just as long as you’re respectful and kind I’m down for anything.

Before or after the round if y’all have questions please ask(or just email me lmao)!

tech >> truth unless there is any acts of violence in the round

Clarity >> Speed but if you can do both even better

——————————————

Top Level

I have experience and background on mostly critical lit bases. In high school I mainly ran antiblackness args with a focus on black feminism. My personal belief of debate is framed around analysis with strong warrants. Everything should be intentional and utilized. That being said every debate should clear judge instruction on you all want the debate should be viewed. The best nr’s are ones that basically sign my ballot for me. Regardless debate how you want and I’ll do my best to evaluate it!

——————————————

I have the most experience with Policy v. K and K v. K that being said as long as your speeches are clean and flow able a policy throw down is fine.

add me to the email chain!

luke.vu0@gmail.com

debate however you want to, I'll adapt and my paradigm is likely to not fully encompass my views on debate
Good debating will always overcome any of my biases, these are just defaults if things are uncontested

Notes for online debate
If you raise your pitch while spreading, please go slower so you don't peak or modify your gain filter so your audio does not cut out
Prefer cameras on including prep

If you have a fun strategy feel free to run it in front of me - this excludes exclusionary strats

Good for speed, just make sure you're clear, if I clear you and you don't change then don't be surprised if my flow misses an argument you made

Evidence quality and ethics are highly valuable to me, although I typically let the flow decide what is "true". That being said I have a low threshold for ignoring bad cards, if your opponent reads bad cards jump on this. If you don't, I won't do the work for you.

Additionally rehighlighting their evidence will always boost your speaks and be very good at zeroing whatever argument they want the card to make. However, make sure you are right about what you point out.

feel free to post round if you don’t think my decision was clear

Topicality -

Default to competing interps (this means you need to say reasonability and extend it through the 2ar)

Topic specific definitions > general definition > noncontextual definitions
I can be persuaded otherwise but this is what I default to

I enjoy evaluating T debates and would consider myself good for them.

T USfg -

Negative teams need to answer the impact turns by being specific about how their impacts implicate the affirmative model's solvency. Your education/fairness arguments mean nothing if it is key to something that the affirmative is critiquing.

Typically the team which is more specific with their framework offense will win the debate, broadly saying debate is violent or procedural fairness is key are unpersuasive absent a reason why the other team's model does not solve for your impact or exacerbates it.

Clash > fairness > education > skills

Affirmatives need to define the role of the negative

K Affs -

Teams that counter-define the resolution and create an interesting model of debate will more often than not win in front of me. I find full impact turns to T less persuasive relatively but will still vote on them.

Any affirmative that is willing to defend itself and its purpose in the debate space may be read in front of me. Advocate for what you want my ballot to represent and I will typically use it as such unless you lose framework.

Theory -

Have a high threshold for most arguments as a I believe theory should typically be used to create reasons to reject the team

Disadvantages -

Turns case arguments are important to me, especially when comparing extinction impacts

Soft left affs should look to win the framing page with more than just "extinction never happens".

The best way to zero a disad is with evidence indicts.

There is not always a risk of the link/impact and I will typically read the cards surrounding those two most thoroughly in my decision

internal links need to be debated out more often, they're often the sketchiest part of any argument.

Counterplans -

If you are going to read cards on the counter plan it should have a solvency advocate in the 1NC, otherwise I will be easily persuaded by theory

CPs based off 1AC evidence are some of my favorite to judge

I lean neg on the question of sufficiency framing so comparison of the world post-aff vs post-cp are very important to me

Kritiks -

I would say I'm a good judge for any K

I think that the block should have a significant amount of link explanation (I love link specificity based upon internal links), therefore I'm more empathetic to grouping blippy links in the 1AR as a way to deter the link shotguns that seem to have become more popular. This is because too often I see teams throw out 5 or 6 links in the block to have the 1AR drop one they apparently aren't prepared to go for in the 2NR and end up collapsing the debate down to the one argument which was covered. (this will tank your speaks as a 2N)

Framework is key to how I evaluate the alt and what my ballot represents - teams can still win absent framework and it is a viable 2nr in many cases if you're ahead on the link debate

On that note, affs should try to isolate whether the alt is material or not as early in the debate as possible, this informs a lot of the debate and letting the negative run away with this will lose you debates.

Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com

Current KU Debater, previously debated at De Soto High School, Kansas.

General.

These are just my thoughts nothing is final :)

Not a fan of being called judge :/

Tech >>> Truth.

Any speed is fine. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this. (It probably would help you from losing to the ableism procedural!). If I'm judging something that is not varsity, I would prefer you to ask your opponents while I'm in the room if you can spread. I will be upset with you if you spread at some first-years just because you want to win and it will definitely tank your speaks if not give you the L depending on the other team's response.

If its not highlighted its not being evaluated.

Accessibility is a massive part of how I determine speaks. Not sending analytics is cringe. It won't lose you the round but I'd prefer you would.

No laptop 2ar/2nrs will get you higher speaks. Block bots are cringe.

I will sometimes skim over evidence (only if I'm scouting really) but otherwise, I would prefer not to.

Slowing down on Tags + Authors will get you higher speaks.

Death good is cringe and I will not have fun in that debate, but I will still listen to spark, wipe out, or death good.

Extinction is the death of most of the human species if not all of it, most evidence does not get to this threshold and is something debaters should point out more. Just because the evidence says 'existential' in one line and does not explain how X causes extinction does not mean you access an extinction impact.

Rehighlightings are cool but this a communication activity which means I would like you to read them. I think inserting like one sentence is fine. Is it arbitrary? Yes. But reasonability outweighs or something something AT: Competing Interps---2AC.

I am sympathetic to Affs when it comes to CP competition. I think the neg has gotten WAYYYYYYY to comfortable with reading things that rely on artificial competition. But a process that says the aff or at least even the topic I think is a decent bright line. (More down below). I'm especially sympathetic to theory interps about solvency advocates.

Affs probably don't get to perm DAs unless there is a UQ CP or if they are nonintrinsic ie ptx.

Alt >>> framework. Rejection is not an alternative it is the squo. K teams read boring alts and it sucks bc its usually where the aff has the weakest responses.

Cap one trick in high school. Familiar with security and Set Col. Semi familiar with anti-blackness, anti-queerness, and various pess interpretations of those kritiks. I'm not a fan of Pomo and you will have to over-explain it to me.

Slightly longer sentences >>> buzz words.

Competing interps >>> reasonability. I can honestly be persuaded by reasonability in some debates but models is probably the best way to evaluate T/Theory over the season.

DAs are cool.

Condo and disclosure are likely the only reason to reject the team for theory.

I value author quals pretty high.

Policy Affs.

Having 2-4 impacts with justifiable internal links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having 20 impacts in the 1AC

Affs should be immediate and certain otherwise you will probably lose to theory.

Durable fiat only goes so far.

Cut your own affs if you have the time. It takes sooooooo long and kinda sucks but camps release not the best ev a lot of the time.

Proper sign posting in the 2ac is awesome. Going straight down leaves a lot of room for me to mess up which arg goes where.

You will probably lose to CPs almost every time if you do not have good aff key, certainty key, and timeframe arguments that are or can be impacted out.

Impact turning as the aff is fun and I wish I did it more. I think impact turning the net benefit is especially fun and something I would like to judge but I know condo makes this pretty difficult.

Be prepared to justify your assumptions. If you lose to the K a lot it’s likely because you are not justifying why the theory of the aff is good. This is especially true for IR/security debates.

Don't be scared to kick a part of or the entire aff if the block is long.

Don’t be afraid to go for theory against author PIKs or word PIKs.

If you get hit with procedural don’t panic. A lot of times you probably don’t link and then your response is actually problematic. (If you read that apology card vs the ableism procedural I will not be particularly happy [reading a card with multiple slurs in it doesn’t help your case bro])

In depth case debate is awesome.

Kritical Affs/Nontopical affs.

I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Presumption is kinda meh for me. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff is good.

T debates are kinda my worst nightmare. I can flow but damn do y’all go sooooo fast on your 2ac blocks which makes me sometimes lose the intricacies of the T response.

Impact turning >>> our model solves. I think our model solves loses to predictability most times so I would prefer just impact turning clash or fairness.

I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.

Counter interps are often mishandled by the aff and you should take advantage of this.

Good answers to a TVA are a must. If you win the res will never incorporate your advocacy and your advocacy is good then it is pretty easy to me to vote for you even if the neg wins a clash/procedural fairness arg.

I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.

Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.

DAs.

Not a whole lot of thoughts here tbh.

DAs that are 3 cards long with 2 sentences highlighted are cringe. Pls read warrants. Just bc your author says something doesn’t mean it is automatically true. Including the justification in the ev is vital. Otherwise a good 2A will roll you.

0 risk of link is not true.

Turns case evidence is often not very good and most affs should point this out. But good turns case analysis by the neg is something that will make the DA super big in my evaluation. My thoughts about case turns the DA are pretty similar.

Reading cards that are one paragraph long and have one sentence highlighted are basically analytics. Pls read evidence with reasoning.

Timeframe is underutilized. Most teams use it well in the Econ DA v climate adv but forget about it when it comes to other affs. Only one extinction can happen!

X neg impact inevitable under Y Aff impact is persuasive but without some form of defense will not win you the debate.

External impacts >>> internal. A good aff team will probably out internal link you.

Don’t be afraid to go for defense and risk of case outweighs.

Most DAs say extinction and do not get to that threshold which make the 2ac case outweighs argument very persuasively.

Negs often have bad answers to thumpers and link uniqueness arguments which is something that is really persuasive for me.

Negs should be ready to justify why the aff links to the agenda politics DA when it comes to intrinsicness.

Slight risk of the DA + a CP that solve the entire aff is game over for the aff.

Same thoughts for impact turns (I would love if you tell me to get a new sheet for one especially if you know you're gonna go for it).

CPs.

CPs should compete textually and functionally.

Functional competition >>> Textual competition. Textual competition is just not true.
Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. If the neg cannot prove that X action could happen over the aff then I don’t think it is a real CP that I should evaluate. Artificial competition is bad.

Delay CPs are controversial to me. Do I think they’re cheating? Yes. Are they also a good functional limit of non controversial affs? Yes.

Conditions CPs are meh and probably don’t have an advocate.

Consult CPs should have an advocate that says the topic core or the aff. The aff arg that consult is normal means is persuasive and better when carded.

Affs should impact turn the net benefit more.

Kritical CPs often are not competitive or just not real.

PICs have no bright line. Every CP is a PIC out of something. Neg theory arguments that use this logic are particularly persuasive to me.

Internal links to net benefits are pretty meh sometimes. At least ensure that your not real CP is at least kinda true.

Adv CPs are cool. 20 Plank adv CPs are not.

Uncarded CPs in the 1NC are not real, they do not have an advocate.

New 2NC CPs are abusive asf. Kicking planks is also probably abusive.

My fav CP debates are about authors who say X aff proposal is bad instead we should do Y.

Competition tricks like ban the plan are not persuasive.

K v Policy.

Perm double bind is not a real argument. I hated seeing this every round when I read the Cap K. At best it is a question of link uniqueness which most Ks will have.

Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.

I think perms should be treated kinda link mini affs. If the net benefit of the perm outweighs the DAs to the perm then the perm is good.

Not all Ks need framework. The Cap K that says growth bad and has a rev alt doesn’t need to interrogate the epistemology of the aff. But debate how you want to????‍.

Fairness, education, and clash should be impact turned or solved by the negs framework.

Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.

Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.

Link you lose should be impact turned by the neg more often. It is basically every aff arg on framework that the 1ar extends and winning something like predictability or reasonability as defense definitely helps with this Strat.

Im sympathetic to extinction outweighs. Magnitude outweighs, turns the K, and deprioritization good >>> future gens and you can only die once. I also think winning that extinction outweighs is a reason to weigh the aff and is something both teams should recognize more.

Consequentialism >>> deontology and various other things.

Links should be specific to the topic or the aff.
For Ks that go for large scale impacts link turns case is persuasive.

Alternatives often go undercovered by the aff and negs should utilize this.

Rejection is not an alt. Negs should be ready to justify their alts just like affs should have to justify their theories.

Alt solves the aff should be utilized more.

Material alts >>> nonmaterial. Epistemology alts should have a clear explanation of what would happen under such or clear judge instruction on how I am supposed to weigh claims.

Roll of the Ballot/Judge are kinda a wash for me.

Floating PIKs are bad.

Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative. Ie with the Cap K not fiating the alt might be good because incorporating the aff might remove the material conditions and the thus the will of the proletariat to rise up.

K v K.

Most people do not like these debates and I understand why but a good K v K debate is one of my favorites.

Reading the generic Escalante party alt plus links from a camp file that don’t really apply makes cap debaters look bad.

Affs should get perms. Are they abusive sometimes? Yes. Are no perms worse? Yes.

Alternatives that solve the affs are really persuasive in these debates and make framing the link debate easy.

My fav part of these debates is that bland a crack down arguments probably link to both sides which force teams to have in-depth arguments and expositions about theories of power.

The most important parts of these debates is establishing completion. If you’re gonna read a K in the 1NC then be ready to defend the alt’s explanation of why X happens. Pess v futurism debated are a good example of such.

T-USFG/Framework.

Procedural fairness >>> probably every other impact.

The block and especially the 2nr should only extend one.

Aff counter interps are often pretty bad and don’t solve a lot. Negs should point out the aff impact turns to fairness probably link to the counter interpretation or are not solved by it.

Predictability is something both teams should utilize more.

Speeding through these debates are kinda awful to flow.

Clear sign-posting is probably the most important out of most things in this debate.

Group DAs most of them have the same thesis.

2-4 really solid DAs with impacts that connect to case >>> 20 one line DAs with barely and impact.

TVAs are important to me. I don’t think it’s the burden of the neg to prove that the aff could be topical and not reading a TVA is still a winning strat but winning that level of offense kinda makes the debate super easy to vote neg.

SSD needs to be explained better with net benefits in the 1NC. Treat SSD like a mini aff if the advantages outweigh the DAs then add is good.

Do not drop case.

T.

Competing interps >>> predictability.

I think fairness can be an impact.

Aff ground and overlimiting are underused.

Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can defo change my preference.

Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.

Spamming defense without nuance in the 2ac is bad.

Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).

Theory.

Interp wording is vital. I dislike neg strats that default to just calling the aff interp arbitrary. I think all theory is arbitrary its more a question of competing interps.

Resolutional theory >>> nonresolutional theory.

Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.

I don't think judge kick is a voter but a dropped 1ar argument can change that.

I think dropping theory sucks because most time its bad and doesn't link. Auto voting down teams bc of this where I find myself questioning tech over truth but I will try my best to maintain my a fair environment. Tbh I would rather just reject the arg ie someone drops floating piks bad and I just reject the alt.

Procedurals also follow most of this but I think this is definitely where I can be convinced more on reasonability. Aff teams that say something problematic should not go all in on "their interp is arbitrary," after saying a slur. I'm sure this might make some ultra-tech people upset but being problematic inround outweighs and probably ruins the education value of debate

If you got this far please don't make fun of my lack of grammar :)

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. It makes it seem like you have been in control of the round since the beginning.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. Ugly docs usually means ugly debating.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.