I'm a senior in high school who hasn't participated in the debate program prior to 2024. I have already completed 24 hours of college credit. I'm in the Novice debate class this year, but not debating, and instead judging novice practice debates and helping out the team.

Treat me like an educated lay judge.

About Me: I competed in debate and forensics for four years in high school, mainly competing in Policy and Congress, but occasionally PFD as well. Competed at the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Congress twice. Competed at the KSHSAA 4A State Debate Tournament three times, placing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. If you use speechdrop I would like to be included so I can stay on top of stuff (as long as competitors have no objections).

email address: daniellarson16@gmail.com

Policy Debate Preferences:

On Case: Big fan of on case, especially solvency and harms mitigation. I tend to but a large focus on these areas during a round since I tend to be more focused on stock issues. For solvency I tend to vote for arguments that are case specific. Generic solvency arguments don't tend to sway me unless you run a really good one. Harms mitigation comes second to solvency, and again, specific stuff is key. I find inherency arguments to be relatively weak, but if you think you can make it work than go for it.

Topicality: I think topicality debate is some of the most enjoyable debate to watch, especially when it's done well. I think that if you do choose to run T, it should be one of the more important arguments in the round. Try not to just focus on definitions, but voters and standards too. These really help me evaluate the T during the course of the round and arguments here tend to produce pretty good clash. Additionally, I won't vote for any reverse voting issues on T.

DAs: My favorite form of off case argument. I think DAs are great, but I think that they need to have some strong evidence to really prove to me that the DA would actually happen. I think the link and brink are the most important aspects of the DA. I've seen way to many DAs where it jumps from something like increasing spending by $10 million straight to nuclear war. You need to make the "story" of the DA make sense. Additionally, not a big fan of terminal impacts, I tend to pref probability.

Counterplans: CPs aren't something I ever ran when I competed, but I debated plenty of them and am fine if you run one. Just make sure it's mutually exclusive. I view a perm as the most important argument when it comes to a CP, and if the Aff can prove they can perm I'll flow the entire CP to them.

K/Theory: Similar to CPs, I never used Theory, Ks, or K-Affs, but I debated them all plenty of times and have a good grasp on these arguments. I won't encourage you to run these, but if you're someone who absolutely love to make these kinds of arguments than I'll happily roll with it. Just make sure you properly explain to me why these arguments matter in the first place. And if you run a K, please include an alt.

CX: CX is probably my favorite part of a policy round, but it also is when it can get the most heated. Just try and be respectful. CX is a part of the debate that really influences me as a judge, so use it well.

Speed: I can keep up with just about anything. Going fast is perfectly fine with me, but if you start to spread you may lose me. I can 100% handle this speed, but the style of argumentation that comes with spreading isn't something I particularly enjoy. I much prefer good argumentation as opposed to throwing out tons of arguments in the hopes of overwhelming the other side.

General Stuff: Judge instruction is a big one. Really highlight what the important parts of the round are and why I should be voting for your team (who won on what, why I should pref your args, etc...). Secondly, impact calc is very important. If you can clearly lay out why the dis/advantages of the aff are important, it goes a long way in influencing my decision. As I mentioned earlier, I tend to pref probability>magnitude, but I can adapt.

TL.DR: Tend to prefer Case, DAs, and T. CPs and K/Theory are fine, but they aren't my favorite arguments, so make sure they're good. Use your CX well. Good with any speed, but prefer that you don't spread. Tell me how/why to vote. Impact calc please.

Overall I'd say my preference are pretty lax, I'm just hoping to see good rounds of debate because I love the activity. Just try and be respectful to your opponents and have a good time. If you have any other questions feel free to ask prior to the round!

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

My coaching resume:

4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)

10 years Shawnee Mission North

12 years Shawnee Mission West

1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit

What I do not like:

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

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

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

theory debate

extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple

What I like:

topic-centered debate

real-world application

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

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

people who are kind but assertive

maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)

assistant coach at de soto

jeanninealopez@gmail.com

i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy arguments

i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over k's is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen, but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplan/disad strategies, so i know those best, but run what you know best

speed is fine only if you are clear

your speech is over once your timer goes off -- you can take a few words to finish a sentence, but anything else that you say isn't going to be on my flow

please ask questions if you have any

Last Updated: November 2023

Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)

Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)

Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot

* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.

*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.

*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.

*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.

*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.

*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.

*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.

*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.

* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.

*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.

* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.

*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.