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.

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.

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. Both aff and neg need to contextualize the round to the affirmative. I also need (need) a reason that you have won the ballot in this debate. I think often times this just becomes a block battle that has almost no interaction -- don't do this or you will probably be unhappy.

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.

washburn rural 24

ku 28

he/him

carson.bath6 @ gmail.com

update---please don't call me judge, i don't vibe with it

debate is a game, and i enjoy this game. i have engaged in both policy and critical styles of debate and am willing to vote on whatever, assuming that it is not racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc. though i view debate as a game, this does not mean that i will not vote on arguments to the contrary so long as you win debate should be a form of activism or that the education we garner matters more than procedural fairness or clash. rather, everything in debate is motivated by competitive incentives, and my decision will reflect who i believe did the better debating. i think the best debates occur when you do what you do best.

tech > truth. to me, this means that i will attempt to minimize intervention and that all arguments are viable as long as you win them (excluding those outlined above). minimizing intervention also means minimizing how my predispositions to specific arguments influence the round. i do not enjoy it when a round becomes about what the judge wants to hear rather than what you want to debate about. many judges contend that arguments such as “death good” are harmful or a bad argument that you shouldn’t go for. i don’t care, and i think people should just answer it. if you believe that these arguments are bad, just win that death is bad and we should avoid it, which should not be difficult to do…

inserting re-highlightings is fine if you explain what it says and how that interacts with their arguments. if you don’t care to tell me what it says, why would i care to read it for you?

i will not evaluate things that happen outside the round. that is not my job and should be resolved with your coaches, their coaches, or if it is that serious, resolve it with tab. these arguments are not falsifiable and even if you have receipts i am not going to make decisions based on whether or not i think debaters are good or bad people because i probably have no clue who you are.

flow the debate and i will flow your speeches. if you spend time answering an argument that was not made, but was in the doc, your speaks will be lower. if you drop an argument that wasn’t in the doc because you weren’t flowing, your speaks will be lower. flowing makes for better debates. i will also abide by my flow when making my decision and will not stop flowing because you told me to. i may not catch everything if you are reading as fast as you can directly into your laptop screen. this is not because i am bad at flowing or that i don't care to pay attention, but it is nearly impossible for me to understand you and write down what you are saying without pen time. because of this, i would prefer if you slowed down slightly in rebuttals. not answering arguments where they are made and forcing me to look through my flows for you is a form of judge intervention. answer arguments where they are made.

i have no issue with speed so long as you are clear. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing your speech. if debate is online, i would emphasize clarity more than you usually would and go slightly slower. i don't need your analytics, nor will I ask for them; however, if your opponent asks for them to make debate accessible and you refuse to send them, i would think again.

if you are going to go for an argument about their author(s) being problematic or ev ethics, you should have notified the other team of that issue prior to the round. if you don't, i will still make a decision about the author or stop the round and decide whether ev ethics was violated but will ultimately be unhappy. you should try to prioritize having substantive debates rather than giving a speech no one wants to listen to and making me give an rfd that i don't want to give. debate should be educational and no one gets anything out of the round if it is stopped in the block because you wanted an easy win.

for this topic in particular, you should likely over explain the aff, disad, counterplan, etc. early in the debate because i am not researching the intricacies of ipr and have little background knowledge.

if you fail to read a complete disad, or argument in general, your opponent should not be expected to answer it as one. i don't have super unique thoughts about disads. specific evidence comparison for internal link chains and impact evidence will go a long way and make my life easier.

i won’t judge kick unless it’s in the 2nc and 2nr. that being said, i don’t really like to judge kick anyway and think you should just pick a winning 2nr. if you are reading a very technical process counterplan you should explain what it does and how it competes because i will not vote for an argument that i cannot explain.

you should do vastly more judge instruction if going for topicality and do more robust standards debating than you think is necessary. flag your offense and defense as well as your opponents and how yours interacts with theirs.reasonability, i believe, is confusing to adjudicate. i do not understand what it means for an interpretation to be “reasonable” and it seems arbitrary. i need a bright line established for why your interpretation is reasonable and what it means to be reasonable to vote for it.

i went for colonialism a lot my senior year and i think that the best strategy for k teams is one that moots the aff. a fiated alternative with links to the plan loses to the perm too much for it to be preferable. my background in critical literature is almost exclusive to cap, colonialism, and security so if you are reading psycho, pomo, or most other kritiks, you should overexplain the lit because i don't have the knowledge to easily make connections or understand the critique. something i have noticed while reading critical arguments is that aff teams should try to justify their scholarship more. you can win that cap is good, heg is good, extinction is bad, or that consequences determine ethics and free up some time from the framework debating.

organized debate is best, and generally, i feel the longer the k overview is, the further the debate strays from being organized. please answer arguments on the line by line and do not assume the prewritten overview that you read in every debate will answer all of their arguments about your theory of power, etc. answer arguments where your opponent has made them and i’m fine. you should also spend more time on the link debate in front of me, i think that link specificity is very important. reading a single card about ipr broadly being bad for x reason or the usfg being bad for x reason means so much less to me than a detailed analysis about why the rhetoric they are using or the specific form of ipr they are increasing is uniquely bad.

planless affirmatives are good so long as the affirmative departs from the status quo and you win the framework debate. for method debates, i think teams need to be clearer about how the methods interact with one another. what i mean is, how should i adjudicate a method about changing debate v a method about changing global systems of oppression? you should be doing enough work to get there, and if you don’t it will be significantly harder for me to vote neg. best method v k aff is probably cap but i'm down to hear whatever. neg on presumption is definitely plausible.

if you have questions, email me or ask pre-round.

I debated for four years at Lawrence Free State High School ('24)

I debate at the University of Kansas ('28)

Please add me to the email chain: connorvbrown@gmail.com

Top Level

I know very little about this topic and IPR in general---acronyms, etc should be explained.

Agree with pretty much everyone that tech>truth, in depth debate is better than shallow, and people need to do more impact calc.

I really think you need to slow down and be extra clear on certain parts of the debate---it's actually impossible to flow things like FW, theory, perms, or really blocks of any kind when you are going at the same pace/clarity of the body of a 1AC card.

I won't clear you, but if I'm not typing/writing when you want me to be flowing you need to slow down a little and be more clear.

You should read re-highlightings, don't just insert them.

Decision-making

I like to make simple decisions---I'll flow the debate and pay attention to technical concessions, but teams that win and explain a controlling argument that filters out the other team's offense will win more often in front of me than teams that shotgun a billion arguments and don't impact them out. This means I think that final rebuttal overviews should not just reread 1AR/2NC overviews, they should explain what arguments they are winning, why that matters, and why it doesn't matter if the other team wins some arguments.

K

I'll start my decision and RFD with framework---it's very important for me.

Judge instruction is super important---who turns what, which standard outweighs the other, etc. I won't create a "middle ground" framework if I think it's a tie.

If I can't explain to the other team what the link/impact was in the RFD, I will have a hard time voting for you.

Similar to the above point, your 2NC/2NR link explanation should be tailored to the specific affirmative---use lines from their ev, moments in CX, don't just reread the same "USfg/IPR bad" block over and over.

K Aff

Judge instruction is even more important for this.

Neg teams should answer case in 2NR.

Theory

I think theory is underutilized, but Aff teams should create better interps than just something like "PICs bad".

I'm unlikely to reject a team based on a theoretical objection to a CP/Alt.

I'm unlikely to view new 2NC counterplans as legitimate.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-2024 - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality)

2024-Present - Lawrence Free State, KS (IP Law)

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

I am easily persuaded that not sending evidence read in a speech with speech prior to the start of the speech is a violation of evidence sharing rules.

Put me on the chain: tianamarion7@gmail.com

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South, head coached at Sacred Heart high school, and assistant coached at McPherson High School.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged dozens of debates on the topic.

I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. ASPEC, counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy, and impact turns which argue large portions of the population should die are not persuasive to me.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument.

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. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.

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.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

Biggest issues in my decisions on the IP topic.
1. If you are going for a kritik, you need to contest the case OR overwhelmingly win an explicit framework argument that tells me the consequences of the plan shouldn't matter.

Contesting the case doesn't necessarily mean reading impact defense or traditional solvency arguments, but you should explain why winning your link arguments disprove or turn aff advantages. For example, if you read a China threat K with links about the plan's China war advantage, your 2NR should also include some defense to the aff's other advantage(s), provided the aff extended any of those.

Neg framework interpretations which tell me to totally ignore the consequences of the plan are an uphill battle in front of me. You are almost always better off telling me why the aff's advantages are incorrect and arguing that your impacts of the kritik outweigh, rather than telling me to ignore the aff.

2. This topic seems very big and every aff seems very confusing. I will reward specific strategies and case debating with higher speaker points.

3. I am not a great judge for planless affirmatives. If you plan on reading a planless affirmative, I should be lower on your pref sheet. It's not that I hate them, I just really struggle to understand the aff's answers topicality, presumption, or even "why should we negate your affirmative"-style arguments. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read.

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.

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.