Tarrence Byrd he/him

Please add me to the email chain:byrdtar@usd437.net

Updated 10/31/2023

2nd year, varsity debater at Washburn Rural so I am fine with speed I would prefer a slower round to be honest but it's fine if you don't. Just don't spread if the other team has asked you not to spread. Basically, don't be a jerk. I want to see teams that are kind to each other even while debating. #ChooseKindness!!!

Tell me why I should vote for you (judge instruction)

Run whatever you want I guess it depends on how you make the arguments anyway. Here are my preferences:

Ks: run them if you understand what they are talking about and if you know how to argue for the K on the note of K affs I don't really care what you do with them but if you can persuade me then you will get my ballot. Personally I am pretty interested in K affs but that's only because I want to learn more about them not because I am 100% experienced in them. Ks without alts are fine as long as you articulate the links as case turns. Please explain your K i'm not too familiar with a lot of it. Here are the ones I am mostly familiar with: Cap K and Set Col

Topicality: go for it if you think the aff is untopical as with all things if you can persuade me you will get the ballot. I will also be looking if the aff is untopical and if I find that it is, then which ever team ran T will be getting my ballot. I Love Topicality!

Counterplans: do it I love them I appreciate a good counterplan debate maybe add some theory and I will be happy. I think that advantage counterplans are fine I really like them. Don't run condo if they read literally one counterplan!

Disadvantages: love them go for it I would like to see a good disadvantage debate. Nearly all of my 2NRs are Disads!

Theory: go for it I love these especially. I love to watch good theory debates because it just is a lot of fun for me to watch and I also love going for theory when I debate.

Impact Turns: YES! I love these especially and will be very happy if you run one. I don't see these many times so it would be exciting to see one being debated.

Overall just have fun and yes i copied most of this.

3rd year debater at Washburn Rural.

Work hard and have fun.

I have spent a decent amount of time working on/ looking at the novice packet so feel free to run whatever you want. I also do not care how fast you go.

I like debate, so don't change that for me. Act respectfully towards your competitors and me.

A couple of general things I want to see in the debate:

• Flow. Responding to arguments that the other team did not say or not responding to things they did say can be fixed by just flowing
• Warrant!!! So often novices just do not warrant out their arguments and it makes it so boring to judge and does not help you at all. To be honest I do not count arguments as arguments unless they are warranted
• I would prefer if there were no cards read past the 1NR unless it is needed
• Aff needs to extend the aff. You can not win by just saying what your impacts are and then moving on. You need to actually explain how the impact occurs and how you solve it.
• Restating your argument without explaining it is not responding to the other team. Even if it isn't great, you should try and directly respond to your opponents.

If you have any questions ask me! I enjoy giving advice and comments. (Also I am a Junior in high school, you do not need to shake my hand lol)

Campbell Hight

She/her

Washburn Rural '26

hightcam@usd437.net

If you are reading this, you are probably a novice, and I am probably judging you!

First of all, good job reading the paradigm. Second of all, good job for trying debate (especially on this topic)

General Things (in order of importance for Novices)

Be kind and respectful and we'll all have a good time

Flow!

Judge instruction is important. Don't assume I will fill in the gaps for you.

Cross-X doesn't matter in my decision unless you bring it up in a speech. Good CX can get you higher speaks regardless

Speed is fine (just be clear and accommodate if necessary)

Tech over truth

Condo is almost always good

Fairness is an impact

I default to judge kick

I won't evaluate anything that happened outside of the round

Tips for Higher Speaker Points/Ranks in Front of Me

Don't read cards past the 1NR if can be avoided. I might permit one or two 1AR cards if the round calls for it, but no novice should be reading cards in the final rebuttals.

I will almost always prefer you to try giving a speech off your flow/without your computer than just read pre-written speeches in the rebuttals.

Don't waste time. When prep is done, you should be ready to give your speech, not to fiddle with the podium and shuffle your papers for 5 minutes. This being said, if it is a tech problem, I get it.

Topic knowledge will really impress me. This topic is difficult for me to understand as a third year debater, let alone a novice who is also trying to grapple with the mechanics of debate.

Preferences

Topicality -I'm a big fan of T as an argument, and I think it's really important to learn how to read. That being said, I'm not a big fan of just spreading through blocks and not making any analytical arguments off the flow. I will vote on T in the novice packet, but I set the bar at being able to explain your argument without reading blocks.

Ks - I have minimal experience with the K outside of cap. Make sure to explain all parts of the K, especially the link, if you intend to go for it in the 2NR.

Counterplans - I love counterplans (when they actually have a net benefit)! Just make sure to explain what your counterplan actually does, why it is different than the plan, and how it doesn't link to the net benefit.

Everything else is probably fine

joeljijo87@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '26

Topics: NATO, Fiscal Redistribution, IPR

If you debate better and make better arguments then the judge should vote for you. I believe that debate is a game of technical strategy and that dropped arguments are true. Debate is a space that is open to all forms of argumentation but any that may be going against ethical standards should be rejected.

I will not vote for anything outside the debate space. If it is important enough, Tab should decide this, not me.

Tech >>> Truth

I believe that evidence comparison is a very underrated skill in debate. Debaters need to make arguments about authors, dates, etc. about cards. Quality is much better than quantity in a card. 1 card can determine who wins in a debate and who doesn't so pick what evidence you read carefully. Smart cross-applications can be the reason someone wins or loses in a debate round.

Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc). That being said I do not want to hear prepped-out ethics violations, please tell the team beforehand.

I am fine with any form of argumentation that you like running. In the end, whoever does the better debating is the team that I will vote for. The only ones that I would preferably not like to hear is ^^^.

How to get lower speaks:

---Sending in a PDF/Google Doc for a speech document.

---Being unclear.

---Trying to shake my hand?? (weird thing to do)

---Being rude.

---Stealing prep.

---Refusing disclosure.

---Attempting to get a marked copy. Just flow or take prep for it.

Ayo peeps.

Im a current senior debater and have been doing it for four years. So here’s my do’s and don’t’s ig:

1. Debate isn’t all about evidence so make sure you’re doing more than just reading cards in front of me. Make eye-contact, engage with your evidence, show me that you actually know what you are talking about

2. I’m not someone who is like “Oh, I don’t vote on ___.” If you can make a compelling argument, I’ll vote for you. If you don’t make the right argument, I’m not going to vote for you (EX: Neg presented a DA plus a bunch of off case, aff only responded to other off case arguments and dropped the DA or maybe dropped the DA in the 1AR. If in their last speech the neg doesn’t tell me that I should vote for them because the aff dropped the DA—Even though any conceded that the plan would link to the DA, and that I would’ve noticed the aff dropped the DA—then I will not be voting for neg).

3. Be nice. If you’re a mean team I might still give you the win if your arguments stand, but I will be giving you low speaker points and in my judge comments (that I’m sure your coaches read) I will be making note that you were not conducting yourselves in a respectful, sportsmanship way.

4. I’m not someone who will let any personal beliefs influence my debate so go with whatever argument you think is strongest. Like with extinction good, obviously I wouldn’t want it in real life but I’d vote for it in the world of debate if your argument is good enough. Throw whatcha got.

5. Some judges like being called judge, some don’t and would prefer their name. I’m fine with either so call me whichever you’re comfortable with (If you choose to address me by my name, use Mack and not Mackenzie otherwise I will know you haven’t read my paradigm)

Good luck in your debate, I’m looking forward to listening!

I will vote for anything (to prove, I have made an extinction good file). I enjoy theory most. I don’t generally debate Ks so I might be less knowledgeable with Ks. I’m not the person you should read a K aff on, unless the other team completely mishandles T. Unless a team tells me not to, I use competing interps to judge T.

If you do not extent an argument in some way (preferably overviews), then I will flow the argument to the other team.

Quite frankly, I never quite got presumption. If neither team has an argument in the 2AR I am voting affirmative because why not. That isn’t to say I refuse to vote negative in that situation, but the argument must be made. “Vote negative on presumption” is not enough for me.

This topic is too big and the neg is too bad for the affirmative to not disclose. In open/novice, The affirmative should name the plan when asked.

Theory over substance and nothing can convince me otherwise.

I literally don’t mind if you lie/don’t use evidence, just know that actual cards will trump pure confidence.

If you bring up the rules of debate, then I will immediately vote against you. I will laugh as I do so. Debate has no rules except speech times. To say otherwise is to incur my personal wrath.

Use she/they pronouns for me. Mistakes will not be met with mercy.

I have two years of experience in debate for Washburn Rural High school, and I am a first year varsity debater, which has given me a solid understanding of argumentation, research, and effective communication. While I am familiar with the structures and strategies commonly used in debate, I acknowledge that I am not an expert on this particular topic. I am eager to engage with both sides of the argument and to learn more through the debate process.

Since I’m still learning, I am open to new ideas and perspectives. I appreciate when opponents bring unique insights or information to the debate, which can help deepen my understanding of the topic.

My primary goal is to learn and grow as a debater. I welcome constructive feedback and am interested in exploring the complexities of the topic rather than simply “winning” the debate.

I value clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. I believe that debaters should strive to make their case as compelling as possible, while also addressing counterarguments thoughtfully.

Please respect everyone in the room while debating. I will dock your speaker points if you are rude to me, your opponents, or any other spectators in the room. Debate is formal arguing and we should not be disrespectful in any way or form.

When it comes to arguments I'm not to picky about what your run and I don't really have any preferences. Although I never really understand Kritiks and they never make sense to me, but if you do a good job with judge instruction and explain your argument well, I may be able to understand. I am big on judge instruction because I can get lost pretty easily. I will purely vote for the team that did the better debating in that round. I do not care what your past records are or what school you go to, and I don't care if I know you personally. I vote solely off of how you debated. My personal favorite argument to debate and see debates off of is any kind of inflation DA but that is me personally. I want you to have fun with the debate and not feel nervous.

When is comes to speaker points it can get tricky. If you are a novice I will base it off of how you preform. examples being, volume, eye contact, clearness, logic, ect. For other debates I understand it can be tricky to get good speaks as a 1N or 1A because your partner makes these arguments for you but I will gives speaks out based on strategy and confidence.

Please don't be afraid to ask questions after the debate. I may not give you and RFD but I will always be open to giving notes and answering questions at the end of the debate. I love to talk and give advice so please don't be afraid to ask a question if you have one.

I look forward to a spirited and educational debate. Let's work together to explore the topic, challenge each other’s ideas, and expand our understanding!

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.

Rebecca Reed

Washburn Rural High School Policy Debater 2022---present (Junior. NATO, FR, IPR)

reedreb@usd437.net

Tech > truth for any argument that has a warrant, whether it is the Politics DA, death good, or condo. Ad-Homs are not arguments. Clipping is an auto loss.

The debate decides whether fairness is an impact, whether the Politics DA is a thing, whether your consult CP is cheating, whether if the alt can compete philosophically, etc. I don't believe judges should have preconceived notions about certain arguments that interfere with the round. Given that statement, I don't feel as if my personal takes on arguments are really necessary.

Ev comparison > card dumping

Speed is fine. If you want to go fast, do it if you think it will make the round better for everyone. I will flow only the person who is supposed to be giving the speech. I use only what I have flowed to fill out the ballot.

Don't ask questions during prep.

Theory <3

For Novices:

You need to do line-by-line. Analytics are great - don't just read cards the whole round. Flowing is quite helpful. Clash is good. You will most likely win if you can both explain your evidence and the context in which it matters in the debate.

Put me on the chain if there is one --- ava.vonlintel@gmail.com

Ava Von Lintel! Junior at Washburn Rural High School. Debated NATO, fiscal redistribution and IP rights. Been a 2A for a while, but I am now a 2N. If you want more info, look at Tim Ellis' and/or Sean Duff's paradigm. They shaped how I view debate.

Most important thing for me is to be kind and warm. Debaters tend to be cold, and I don't want the novices I'm judging to form that habit. Show each other respect, help each other out, etc, etc.

I prefer clear debating over fast debating. Slow down on tags and authors, and make a pause between pages. Not only is that nice for me, it also shows that you have an understanding of flowing, which is greatly important.

I will be judging novices, and if you are one, it's a good idea to not read more than 3 off in front of me and not the longest version of your affirmative. That tells me you know how to spread, not that you know how to debate. I hate when novices read blocks that your coaches or older kids gave you that are obviously not specific to the debate, where I have to do the work to connect the dots. I think what makes a great debater is the one who takes work off of the judge. It's not that I'm not willing to do that work, but the best debaters will connect all the dots for me. Saying which argument your argument is answering is important, which means you need to clash.

Case---the link debate is always the most convincing and interesting to me. You could make an impact turn that you probably don't understand (since I'll be judging novices) and win because your opponents also don't understand it, but that's not fun for anyone. I like in-depth discussions of what the plan does and how it affects the world. I like analyzing sources and casting doubt on studies. And it's especially important for the negative to engage with the case. If you debate the case well, that wins you some brownie points.

Topicality---I think it's an important check on affirmatives and I generally like these discussions. I think a topicality argument goes better if the negative believes the affirmative is not topical. Don't just read topicality because you can. Read it because the aff is not topical.

Counterplans---I think it's an important out for the negative when they don't want to defend the status quo (though in most situations you probably can). It's important that the counterplan is competitive, meaning it is different from the affirmative and from the status quo. It needs to have a reason that the plan is bad, otherwise I will not vote on a counterplan.

Kritiks---often my least favorite arguments in debate. I don't see myself ever voting for a kritik, though I guess there's a first time for everything. I much prefer practical policy applications of a plan than the metaphorical, educational value of an affirmative. If you do want to win a kritik, have a good link and a reason that uniqueness doesn't matter.

Disadvantages---actually my favorite negative argument. Impact calc and the link debate are especially important to me in these debates. When the 2NR is one DA and case, with an in-depth discussion of how the DA affects the case and vice versa, I'm having the time of my life.