I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Ehhh idk about spreading, its okay kinda but I would prefer a more clearer speech

also i havent read the novice affs so clarity would be good

Things for speaker points:

• Roadmaps 4 flow
• If you do a K or like a complicated argument a lil overview in your second constructive would be nice
• Be polite in CX
• Speak loudly, but please please please do not yell at me especially in a small room

PLEASE TRY NOT TO DROP THINGS PLEASE PLESE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Fun Easter Eggs because im bored and u should do it pls :)

(if u have extra time in your speeches, do this at the END. After the important stuff.

1AC -> list your favorite fruit (important cuz i am trying to make a tier list)

1NC -> recommend a good restaurant wherever you're from (i need new places to go to in wichita)

2AC -> Rank top 5 pizzas from worst to best

2NC -> Favorite type of instant ramen (guys pls i rlly need recommendations)

nothing fun in your first rebuttals cuz super important especially 1AR focus hard on that i believe in u :)

BUT.

you should put your chipotle order (if you have one) in your second rebuttal because it would be super cool

(again if you have time left in ur speeches)

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'm Gourish Mishra, I've been debating for about 2 years.

Try not to drop your arguments, find holes in your opponents' arguments and hammer in on that.

Explain your arguments to me, why they are better than your opponents', and why I should vote for you. So if your points are unclear to me then...

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.

Parent judge. I do not know any debate jargon, please go slow and over-explain. I will NOT disclose the decision, however, I will give feedback if wanted.

I debated four years in high school. This is my fourth year assistant coaching overall.

I think you should do you. Do what works best for you and I will listen to it as unbiasedly as I can. I'm not okay with rudeness or being unkind in round for no reason. I’ve become grumpier as time goes on and don’t like when people do cheaty things. This would be stealing prep, not disclosing, reading from a computer but only sharing a paper copy of the file, etc.

Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 3 years running.

Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.

7 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.

https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/elliott/2012/Student_Organizations/Debate_home.php

Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.

Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.

email: Kaydperd@gmail.com

Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3

Varsity Debator at Wichita East High School

Spread: Okay as long as enunciation remains good

Theory: Okay as long as you understand what you are talking about (can answer the cx questions relating to it lol)

Flay Judge

Note:I can struggle to hear at times so please do speak up, thank you.

(these are my thoughts translated into debate lingo by my daughter)

I am a lay/parent judge and evaluate stock issues. Please use judge instruction and tell me why you do/don't solve the aff. I prefer listening to DA's as they make the most sense to me. If you run a CP, I will not understand the rules of things like perms, linking to net benefits, etc. and will likely only evaluate whether or not the aff or the cp is a face-level better idea. Please do not run K's.

I like good public speaking skills, persuasion, and confidence.