I am a traditional stock issues judge. I do not like spreading, speak clearly and maintain a steady pace.

I debated for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college, but currently coach high school debate.

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 3rd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

Head Coach of a large 5A Program. I debated 4 years in high school and in college. Will listen to everything. Speed is fine. Tell me where to flow and how to vote.

Don't give me generic arguments without specific links. Make sure you understand the literature and explain - not a fan of endless card reading and no analysis.

FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.

I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.

Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.

FOR LD DEBATE:

I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.

I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.

That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.

***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***

FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:

Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.

I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.

Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.

Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.

Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.

Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.

LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.

Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.

Be polite and have fun!

I am an assistant debate coach. I value the arguments and speaking skills equally. I am ok with faster deliveries but you should still be understandable. I would rather have you speak slowly and clearly than stumbling and tripping over your words trying to go quickly. I also judge on politeness. If you are kind and polite to me and your teammates, you get a few bonus points. It is not advantageous for you to be harsh or unkind in a debate round.

As a debate coach, I want to see a well structured case. You should make it easy to follow, understand and flow. This means I want to see you sign posting and your cards in your shared evidence should be labeled by Advantages, DAs, Solv, etc.

I judge based off stock issues. You should be explaining to me in your rebuttals why your team wins on Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency and Significance. It is your job to break down the other team's arguments and doing impact calculus. You should also be spending the rebuttals convincing me why your team should win and asking me for your vote.

DAs/CPs - I am ok with DAs and CPs as long as they have clear and strong links. I would rather you spend your time as a Neg team presenting DAs or CPs rather than Ts or Ks.

Topicality - Topicality arguments in my opinion are usually weak and do not hold much ground. They do not play a large role in gaining my vote so I would stay away from them when possible.

Kritiks - I am not a fan of K Affs. I believe that it defeats the purpose of the debate and is unfair to the opposing team as it is not topical to the resolution. Do not introduce Ks unless they are well thought out and there are clear links. I think your time can be better used bringing up arguments already tied in the debate.

Name: Sheyla Febus

Pronouns: she / her

School affiliation: Goddard High School

Years of Experience: 1

# of Rounds on this Year’s Topic: 5

STYLISTICS:

Good sportsmanship, helping your partner, staying quiet while your opponents are speaking, no insulting your opponents in your rebuttal.

DEFAULT PARADIGM:

Policy making is used as my default paradigim. I’ll weigh your advantages and disadvantages and see which is more probable.

How should debaters approach CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES?

Start off with “is everyone ready?” and end with a “thank you” Correct grammar and clear pronunciation with your constructive speeches. Just be coherent. 

How should debaters approach REBUTTAL SPEECHES?

With total respect and integrity with your rebuttal speeches. Without dropping arguments. 

How should debaters approach EVIDENCE?

Make it clear with dates and where you can find them. No showing new evidence in 2nr and 2 ar.

How much do you value ON CASE debate in a round?

You need all of them to make it at least complete. The offcase isn't that important to me as long as you say which is off and on with your solvency, harms, probability, inherency, and timeframe.

What does the AFFIRMATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot?

For affirmative, Lots of enthusiasm and show that you actually do care for your case. Tell me why you should win and why your case is better than negs. Your Solvency is the most important to me. 

What does the NEGATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot?

For neg. Great rebuttals sufficient evidence to show why I should care about your case rather than Affs. Please have a strong topicality argument. 

What types of behavior(s) will you NOT TOLERATE in a round?

Sexism, racism, ableism, islamophobia, homophobia, and xenophobia. Saying slurs you can and can’t reclaim. It doesn’t matter if you can reclaim them, that is not the type of vocabulary you have when you're in a round. No cursing or calling opponents names.

What types of behavior do you ENJOY seeing/hearing in a round?

Good sportsmanship, helping your teammate, waiting to see if everyone is ready, and just overall being respectful to everyone in the room.

SPEAKER POINTS

30 = 100

29.5 and above = 99

29 and above = 96-98

28.7 and above = 91-94

28.5 = 88- 76

28.4 and below = 68 - 59

28 and below = 49-38

27 and below = 21-29

Below a 26 = 11-15

-

What preferences (explain in some detail) do you have as a judge towards…

>>> Conduct / Sportsmanship?

Sportsmanship.

>>>Speed?

240 wpm should be your speed.

>>>Cross-Examination?

At least 1 minute and 30 minutes of cross Examination.

>>>Prep Time?

Use all prep time if needed. The more used the better.

 >>>Impact calculus?

As much as you can with your impact calculus.

>>>Topicality?

No topicality.

>>>Disadvantages?

Neg- have as much as you can for aff

Aff- as much as you can for neg.

>>>Counterplans?

Must have one. 

>>>Kritiks?

Grammar and speaking skills

What mindset do you use when filtering arguments / arriving at your RFD (reason for decision)?

Who was more respectful and clear with their argument. Show you actually know what you’re talking about

What other comments and/or preferences and/or personality quirks do you have that would be relevant to the debaters?

Depending on your music taste, I'll score you on that. It is vital. 

The last word(s) for debaters. This could be literally anything that is appropriate.

When Facing the Things We Turn Away From out now. 

David Freeland

No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:

Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.

Debate-specific paradigm:

Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.

-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.

-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.

-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.

-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.

-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.

-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.

-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.

-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.

-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.

-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.

Jaret Jarmer-
Put me in the email chain: jaret.jarmer00@gmail.com or speech drop either is okay.

Please share using a Word doc. it's not the end of the world if it is a PDF, but I really prefer a Word doc

TLDR: I try to be as Tab as possible. Everything is up for debate. Run what you want. I'm cool with 9 off and case or 1 off K. If it's a K aff, just tell me what my ballot does, and win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

Debate Experience:

Largest Debate Influence: Evan Manning

Policy: I debated for three years at Eisenhower High School 2016-2019 China, Education, and Immigration. Primarily in DCI and TOC-circuit tournaments. I ran pretty much everything from reading the K of politics as a 2A to Sparking myself. Name it, I have probably done it, so do what you want. Spark and Empire were my favorites, and I ran them both on the Aff and Neg. If you have a question about how I feel about an argument, ask me about it before the round.

PF: I debated PF for two years. I read pretty much everything I ran in policy. I got away with Debate is Bad and Spark more times than I should have. Just go for what you want. If it's not considered traditional, then win it's better than your opponent's vision of debate, and you will probably get what you want.

I have judged debates on and off over the years after leaving High school.

My opinions

Speed is fine

1. Tech over Truth

2. I will never refuse to listen to an argument or vote you down because of my personal opinions about it. This one is extremely important. I list my opinions in my paradigm not to tell how I will default but so debaters and coaches can understand how I think debate. I have zero issues voting against my own opinion.

3. K’s- Are fine; that being said, please explain what my ballot does when I vote for the K. I find it very hard to vote for a K when I don’t know what my ballot means. I ran Hardt and Negri Empire, so past that, don't expect me to know your lit at all. Also, I think it is especially important to be clear on tags here - big words, difficult concepts. (K affs with or without a plan text are fine). The stronger the link, the better..... Links of omissions aren't the best, I think more teams should make the argument that speeches are time-limited.

4. Theory- I like theory debates. That being said, zooming through generic pre-written blocks without adapting them to how they apply to this specific round probably isn't the best strat. I feel like most theory debates don't have much direct clash. For me to vote on this, let me know what my ballot does. Win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

5. DA – I think Specific links are better than generic links. This is very true when it comes to the PTX disad of the year. Impact turning disads is a fun strat. I don't see that much anymore.

4. CP’s- I love all the cheating counterplans you can think of.... Consult, Delay, etc... but an aff can absolutely win this is cheating.

5. T- If you’re going to go for T, go for T. Impacts of violating topicality can be very persuasive. T isn't an RVI, but please don't cold concede this and make me vote on it.

6. Impact Turns- Impact Turns are the best; please impact turn. I'd love to judge a good spark debate. Sparking was my pastime.

K Aff Stuff

Top Level Things

K Affs with or without a plan text are cool. I ran a K aff with a plan text that was a meta kritik. Just because something is my personal opinion on how an argument should function doesn’t mean I’m going to default to it. Tell me how to vote and what the world of debate looks like post my ballot. I think debate is a game, but the cool thing about this game is we get to debate what the rules are. The only literature I’m familiar with is Hardt and Negri, and Judith Butler. I ran Empire on the Neg most of the time and ran Butler on the Aff and the Neg. Outside of that, assume I have never heard of your literature before. So, zooming through the thesis of your K probably isn’t going to help you.

K Aff V Framework.

I prefer a K aff to have some connection with the topic. That being said, I’ll still vote for one that doesn’t. I just feel like the Neg is going to have a much easier time winning framework and abuse claims. I think teams should spend some time on real-world impacts to violating topicality. In my personal opinion, I don’t feel like reading framework is equal to genocide or violence; in fact, I think more teams should leverage real-world impacts to violating limits or topicality in general against the impacts of the Aff.

K V K

I’m down with K v K debate. They probably should clash. It was my default when I was debating a K aff. In the end, I need to know what my ballot does. I don’t feel like I have a preference on a response to a K Aff. Do what you're more comfortable with.

Speaker Points

(If I'm Judging IE events and the scale is out of 25, I will use this scale and subtract 5)

Copy and Paste from Austin's Paradigm

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments effectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

I am a lay judge. Speak clearly and not too fast. Your arguments should clash and please avoid overly technical jargon.

Hi!

I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR)

Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU.

Yes, add me to the email chain, my email is gracemcmanus22@gmail.com

Top level

I don’t care how you debate just don’t be violent in the round. This doesn’t mean you can’t be mean, but rather that you need to be respectful. Meaning your attitude needs to have purpose. If you are just mean for the sake of being mean, your speaks will be hurt and if it goes to far I will end the round and you gotta take an auto L.

Tech over truth. The arguments you make in the debate can be outrageously false but if you are winning on the technical side I will vote for you. If it is a debate where both teams are even on the tech level and impact level, I will have to default to truth. Truth is the last option for me in a debate and if I default to it, usually it means something has gone seriously awry in the debate.

Planless affirmatives

Totally ok with these debates. I will say however that not defending a method in the 1AC means the only way to really win the debate is winning an impact turn on the framework flow, so do with that what you will.

You need to defend the purpose of the ballot. I’m fine with arguments about the ballot being healing for xyz reason but you need to extrapolate that to me.

Framework/T-USFG

I’ll vote for framework any day of the week, if you are winning your impacts. You need to explain why your impacts matter in the space that we are in. Fairness is fine as an impact but saying things like “they have made the debate unfair so reject them” isn’t convincing to me. Tell me why your impacts matter in the context of the debate.

KvK

Method v Method debates are always fun to partake and adjudicate in. If you want to win my ballot you need to give sufficient defense to your alt/advocacy and significant offense against the other teams alt/advocacy. Offense/defense is super important in these debates and if you are too defensive you will likely lose my ballot.

K's on the neg

Run whatever arguments you want. I’m pretty knowledgeable with a lot of k lit but my knowledge does have short falls.

K lit where I have done extensive research: antiblackness, cap, and security.

- go for whatever arg you want on these, you can assume I understand the ins and outs of these arguments, so long framing explanations are unnecessary but you do you.

K lit where I lack research: anthro

- I’m not saying anthro is a bad argument to read in front of me but there are certainly better ones to read. I will vote for you if you win, but you will just need to explain every part of the k in front of me like I’m a silly parent judge.

Every other area not mentioned are areas that I have knowledge on but haven’t done research in so you don’t need to explain the ins and outs of their theory of power but good explanation of the alt would be chill.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate.

Evidence quality is not that important to me. But if you have evidence that is specific to the topic and debate you will find it easier to win my ballot.

I was never a T debater in high school, and I am certainly not one in college. You can absolutely read T in front of me and I will vote on it, but if I looked bored in the back it’s because I am.

Counterplans

Read whatever you want and do whatever you want. I will vote for whatever theory argument you want if you are winning on it. With that being said if you want me to vote on a theory argument in the 2AR it needs to be the entire 2AR. There is zero point in extending condo in the 2AR for like 3 minutes and then moving on to case.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

I use sufficiency framing when evaluating counterplans.

Disadvantages

Read whatever you want, if you are winning the debate I will vote for it.

Uniqueness: I am unconvinced by generic “our uniqueness is two days newer, prefer it” args. Tell me why those “two days” matter for your argument. Uniqueness usually becomes a wash in most debates anyways.

Link/Link turns: If the 2AR wants to win a link turn to the da ima need more than 20 seconds on the link debate. If you want to win a link turn you need to win the link debate. For the neg, impact framing at the top means nothing for the link turn. It’s not a try or die to prevent x scenario if you’re losing the link turn.

impact: do whatever you want, make sure you have impact framing at the top of your rebuttals.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Impact Turns: I’ll vote for whatever impact turn you go for. I have no morals so read whatever you want.

Misc

I do not flow cross x unless you ask me to.

Speaker points range:

28 - 28.4 = More work needs done on executing your speeches.
28.5 -28.8 = Average: room for improvement

28.9 - 29.3 = Above Average: perfect

29.4 - 30 = Perfect + vibes were good + creative

I won’t give you extra points if you ask.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. My default is Policy Maker. I am fine with speed if you are very clear, but be prepared for me to not flow nearly as details because I'm gonna be focused on actually absorbing your arguments.

K:

These are fine, but you better know how to run it well and not just use it to waste your opponents' time and kick out in the end.

Framework/T:

If you run T (which I highly encourage), make it good! It is everything in a round and, yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it. Same goes for Framework for the most part.

DAs:

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know there are alt causes and I can't ignore that.

Counterplans:

Can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Plan:

As a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.). The later into the season we get, the more I expect you to have answers to basic questions and not punt to the "my partner will bring that up in the next speech."

CX:
Yes, I will flow your answers and, yes, your answers matter. The point of CX is "clarification" and I consider it binding in the round. If you provide an answer in CX and contradict it in the next speech, I weigh this against your evidence/plan. You are the advocate for your plan, using the evidence you have gathered as a means to support your ideas. If you aren't consistent in your idea or advocacy, it undermines my confidence in the plan itself.

"It's Against the Rules of Debate":

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Hi! I'm Angelica :) I'm a former debater for Dodge City High School and I now serve as the assistant coach. I've competed in Lincoln-Douglas & Policy, preferring policy. I am a stock issues lover, as it's how I was raised in my first years of debate.

I LOVE it when things are explained simply. I am neurodivergent and things like summaries at the end of cards are awesome for me, not necessary though. I am not a fan of spreading, but if you MUST, I'd like a copy of evidence to help me follow along. CPs are okay with me! I'm not a fan of K args but if you're gonna run them please explain them to me, while I consider myself smart, I am not good at focusing. yes to theory too btw!

tl;dr

• love stock issues so much
• i prefer you don't spread but give me evidence to follow if u need to!
• yes to counterplans
• ok to kritiks BUT explain them well plz
• yes theory args
• thanks 4 being in debate :)

other things about me because i love talking about myself:

• I'm 20
• I love music & concerts. if you wanna chat about it -- ask me! my favorites have been Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and The 1975.
• I have chronic bronchitis -- it's not contagious! but please don't hate me if i cough
• I am a queer Mexican woman -- take this into consideration before running Ks related to my identity
• I've worked for Loud Light, Ford & Douglas County Courts, DCF, and currently, the 16th Judicial District of Kansas.
• I'm a criminal justice major on my school's pre-law track
• rock chalk + go cavaliers ;)

I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.

I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.

You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.

Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...

Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:

I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.

Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.

Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.

In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.

Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.

Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.

I'm an Assistant Coach at Hutchinson High School. I debated for four years in the KDC and DCI divisions.

In general, I prefer a more open style (heavy use of on-case arguments, DA's, and CP's), however, I want debaters to have the freedom to express themselves and do what they want. DO WHAT MAKES YOU SUCCESSFUL!! I will have an open mind when I submit my ballot. A couple of notes for those who want it:

Speed: Speed in the constructives is whatever. I'd prefer a slower debate, but I can keep up. I would prefer rebuttals be slightly slower, but it's up to you. I'll do my best to not miss anything.

Kritiks: I was never a huge K debater in high school, so I'm not up-to-date on the literature (although I have a baseline understanding of the most popular arguments). Make sure that if you read a K, actually explain its relevance in the round. I will vote on it, but you need to do more work for me than you would on judges who are more familiar.

You will win my ballot by giving me some impact stuff in the 2nd rebuttals and telling me why you have won. I'll vote on whatever framework is presented in round, but I default policymaker/impact calc. It would be great if a team did the math for me instead of having to do it myself. What will the world of the aff be vs the world of the neg? Analysis like this will win you the round most of the time.

PLEASE signpost and provide clash. I'll do my best to write a solid RFD on every ballot so y'all understand why I voted the way I did, even if you might not agree with it :)

Email for email chains if that's how you want to share evidence: royalsandchiefs333@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Sydnie VanArsdale I am a Political Science major and current college MUN (Model United Nations) delegate at Wichita State University and was previously one for Washburn University. I did 4 years of almost all varsity policy debate, captain 3 of those 4, and 2 years of forensics (IX and Info) for Bishop Carroll. I am increadibly familar with the NSDA world and the world of political topics.

I’m a Tabula Rasa judge and switch back and forth between hypothesis tester and game therorist depending on the substance of the round. (This means that I come into the round with no previous opinions on the facts and although I understand them you need to give me the basis of where to start and why I should want to believe that. The other parts mean I analyse what you are saying in a way of how it will play out, even if it is a drastic hypotheitical situation, it is all based off what the debate lays out) I will default to an impact lean if not guided on how to evaluate otherwise. Keep links as specific as possible and use well-thought, analytical arguments. Tell me a clear, compelling story through warranted evidence and end your rounds focusing on why things matter (this is a note for you in every round not just for me. Impact analysis is everything in your rebuttals).

I vote based on the quality of the argument/evidence. A smart and substantive debate will win my vote more often than a speed, quantity round. I’ll flow all arguments as long as they are coherent AND I will notice if an argument is dropped, as I flow diligently, so that will be a large part of my end-of-round evaluation.

There aren't any arguments I am specifically opposed to as long as they are debated correctly and supported, I'm fine with it. From that, I will vote on any issue if I find it substantive and defended inadequately, whether that be a T, Kritik, CP, Disad, or case. Nothing is way too absurd for me as long as you run it well. However, I do get a little bit irritated hearing a generic Disad, but it is a case by case basis since I know how it can be with incredibly specific AFF's.

Speed is absolutely fine but if speed isn't you don't feel that you have to, it is not a debate requirement. That is also a note to the opponents. If you ask your opponents if they are okay with speed and they say no, then please be respectful or at least aware of that and keep that in mind especially when sharing ev and all.

Most importantly, as a debater, I know how competitive any of us can be, but remember debate is supposed to be both competitive and fun. you probably think that's BS and to be fair I did too, I wanted to win. Despite my saying that I do love true clash. If there isn't any all of us will be bored, not just me, so keep that in mind. Clash is what makes debate fun for everyone.

Anyways, please just be respectful and understand that this is a hard activity and takes a lot to do. Give your opponents the respect you wish to recieve. Happy debating everyone and good luck!

If you make an email chain, please include me or if you have any questions about the ballot: sydnievanarsdale05@gmail.com

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.

Stock issues are primary.

Speak at a normal human pace.

Your arguments should clash.

Ks and CPs are high risk, high reward.

This year's topic is profoundly legalistic and technical, so don't assume I am an IP lawyer. Always good to remember that you aren't either :).