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.

He/Him

Assistant debate coach for Lawrence Free State (LFS), current KU student. Graduated from LFS in '22, debated all four years (fast debate sophomore year, KDC junior/senior). I don't debate in college.

Put me on the email chain: theezrajoseph@gmail.com

For debaters primarily competing in DCI/faster styles: your best bet is treating me as a flay judge. You can try spreading if you want to, but there is no guarantee that I will keep up/catch everything, especially if I'm flowing on paper. Obviously, that's on a spectrum, and you can be quicker than conversational if you want to be, but I almost certainly will not pick up analytics you're speeding through at 100%. I would love to say, "Go for whatever you're comfortable going for," but unfortunately for both of us, I went for disads/counterplans, so that's what I'm the most comfortable listening to. Again, you cantry your critical affirmative/kritik in front of me, and I will do my best to adjudicate, but you're just increasing your likelihood of getting an RFD that you're unhappy with/doesn't make sense to you.

For debaters primarily competing in KDC/JV/novice: this is the style of debate I spent more time with, both competitively and from a judging standpoint. So, do whatever you're used to/comfortable with and I'll be fine. Things that will make me happy include using your flow, line-by-line debate, and impact calc + judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR.

General miscellaneous: full claims require a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will be flowing, and if I'm really on top of it and not running on fumes, timing prep as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. !!! Judge instruction + impact calc in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean. Dropped arguments don't automatically mean you win the debate if impact framing or something can negate my need to evaluate that argument.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. Most theory arguments outside of condo are a reason to reject the arg unless I'm told otherwise. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Old man yells at cloud things:

-in most circumstances flowing should resolve any need for a marked doc. If you want to ask which cards were not read in a speech, that's either your prep or cx :).

-if you ignore the judge instruction part of my paradigm you will be doing yourself a disservice

EMAIL CHAIN: katie.mcgaughey@usd497.org

ABOUT ME: I did not participate in the activity in high school or college. However, I have judged several policy rounds and speech events in the last 6 years. I have judged everything from local Kansas City tournaments to NSDA Nationals in 2020, 2023, and again in 2024 as well as Speech Events like NIETOC in 2024. I have a Bachelor's degree from University of Kansas in Exercise Science and in Psychology with an emphasis in Cross-Cultural Communication, and I am currently working on a Masters of Science in Data Analytics at Northwest Missouri State University. I work as a Sales Rep at Macmillan Learning where I sell online courseware to community colleges and universities in Kansas and Missouri, and also serve as an Assistant Debate & Forensics coach at Free State High School.

APPROACH: 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. Anybody can read cards, good analysis, and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.

SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative because I flow on paper.

The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and just make sense. It is more important to be right than to be the most clever. I want to see that you have a nuanced global knowledge of the topic, not just reading cards that were cut for you.

POLICY ARGUMENTS: These are the things that I will be the most comfortable evaluating. Case debate, DAs, and smart CPs that are all supported by quality evidence and analytics that reflect your knowledge of the topic will be rewarded. Generating clash through warrant comparison and setting up the end of the round through comparative impact calculus are critical for shaping my ballot. Probability and timeframe are the most important parts of impact calculus to me, and time spent explaining (or breaking down) internal link chains is never wasted.

KRITIKS, PERFORMANCE, & PROCEDURALS: These positions weren't really a part of my competitive career and I've had limited exposure as a judge. I'm willing to listen to them, but you should deploy them at your own risk. Don't assume that I know your literature base or am well-versed in the way that your offense interacts with theirs. Narrative explanation and easy-to-follow structure will be important for me to effectively interact with your arguments. Link articulation is particularly important in this vein; having all of the offense in the world doesn't matter if I don't know how or why it's relevant in the round.

Please ask questions before the start of the round if anything is unclear.

I prefer speech drop. My email filter is likely to screen out unfamiliar email addresses.

TLDR: I flow and understand debate, but prefer moderately-paced rounds over high speed rounds. I prefer policy rounds, but will keep an open mind. Varsity/TOC-level debaters will characterize me as "flay."

I am a former high school debater and practicing attorney. While I am a detailed flow, my pen-speed is unlikely to be able to keep up with national circuit top-tier speed. If you debate at that speed, I that you slow down to about a six on a ten-point speed scale. If I can't hear the argument, I won't flow it, even if it’s on the speech doc. Some debaters tend to ignore this request and spread at uncomfortable levels for me. I encourage you not to do so.

Overall, I tend to assess around as a test of policy. Does case identify a problem that needs to be solved? Does the plan solve for it? Does it do so without disadvantages that outweigh its advantages? In other words, the old-timey stock issues matter to me (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. Also, I really appreciate a good case debate--too few negs challenge case.

Topicality: Unless aff wins a model debate (see K, below), I believe Aff must present a prima facie case in 1AC. I'll vote on T--readily--but neg must understand their argument and win the battle on definition/interp. Note that I tend to view T as a prima facie obligation. Aff, you should know that this means I tend to view it as a priori/jurisdictional, so if Neg wins the battle on violation, I'm likely not to care a ton about a debate on limits, fairness, etc. I WILL listen to the neg's assertion that T "isn't a thing," but that isn't my core belief and Aff has an uphill battle to convince me otherwise.

Counterplans.I wouldprefer to see a debate focused on a topical plan. If you choose to read a CP, I'll entertain the argument, but will listen to Aff's perm claims and expect you to clash on that point. Aff, don't just recite a bunch of blurby perms in 2AC, please do some analysis. If you just read a string of "Perm Do Both. Perm Do the CP then P." etc., I'm not likely to give a lot of weight to the perm attempt. Note that I believe counterplans must be non-topical. I also won't go looking for the net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. My favorite rounds to judge don't include any K position. I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or rhetoric, but its your round, and I understand that Kritik has some value in training high school students to analyze at the meta-level. So I'll hear you out (provided you really explain the lit), but I'll also entertain counter-arguments with equal and perhaps more earnest ears. I also will need to hear a clear, and compelling, Alt. and K advocates must win on role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot. I disfavor K Affs; my default view is it is the affirmative's job to represent the resolution. If that's what you want to read, I'll do my best to evaluate it, but if you have a back-up policy aff, now would be the time to read it.

Tech stuff: If the debate descends into a tech fight, or you're going for a trick in your last rebuttal, then you're going to have to slow way down and explain why I should vote for you. I also tend to be a dinosaur on "offense and defense" nuances. For example, I believe neg can win on defense alone, so if your arguments descend into "no offense, they lose" claims, I may not fully follow you and you may be disappointed in the ballot. Explanation and analysis > jargon and "gotcha."

Honestly, I tend to be old-fashioned in that I like a debate round with a good solid case that is argued. I will listen to counter plans and DAs but they do need to be applicable to the case.

I do not mind some speed but I still like there to be some emphasis on speaking skills and presentation.

I will vote on Topicality if it truly is applicable but make sure you are doing T instead of significance.

I have voted for K before but it needs to be good, applicable and succinct.

Be polite, logical and please do not change history.... For example don't say something such as World War II was the only world war. Doesn't the two imply a one?

If you have questions, ask. I always forget something.

me

she/her. debating @ the university of kansas. debated at lawrence free state. coaching @ lawrence free state and barstow. aaronjpersinger@gmail.com. put me on the chain! have it sent before at or before start time, please and thanks.

tldr

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than small technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

policy

i learned how to debate in kansas and have spent my fair share of time thinking about stock issues and counterplans and disads. i coach teams that exclusively say policy things on the aff and neg. do with that information what you will.

my threshold for voting for dropped arguments has increased with the trend of teams not properly extending their affs/impacts to disads. yes do work on the line-by-line, but explain impacts and solvency mechanisms as you do it. i will not vote on things that you don't extend as a complete argument.

k

i have spent most of my debate career reading arguments about/in the veins of trans studies, queer theory, black feminism, anti-capitalism, sex work, and embodiment. i love good k debates, but really dislike bad ones that result from overadaptation.

i walk into debates with the assumption that the aff gets to weigh the plan and its consequences, and the neg gets links to all facets of the aff, including performance, affect, representations, etc. framework matters a lot to me and should be used to guide judge instruction if you want me to change the above assumptions.

link texture is good and helps tremendously in close debates...examples, framing arguments, turns case arguments, etc.

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

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.

Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com

Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach

Pronouns: He/Him

Non-Policy Notes:

LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.

PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.

Policy Notes:

Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.

I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.

I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.

Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.

Things I find annoying:

- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.

- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.

- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.

- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.

- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?

- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.

- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.

- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.

- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.

- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.

- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)

- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).

TL/DR:

- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand

Former debater in high school (Washburn Rural '04) and college (Emporia State '08)

Former Direct of Speech & Debate 2009-2024 (Hutchinson High, BV North, Free State)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I do not know anything about this topic - not coaching, haven't done any research - adapt accordingly

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus throughout the debate. Conducting impact calculus without talking about your opponent's impacts isn't impact calculus, in my opinion.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve the problem(s) you've isolated.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate your arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always.; If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

**Having zero topic knowledge makes T a double edged sword - I'm less likely to default to whatever the community consensus might be; but I'm also likely to be more difficult to persuade of arbitrary distinctions which would require me to have some understanding of aff and neg ground on the topic.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often. My recommendation would be for your side of the debate to avoid these pitfalls.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans. No topic knowledge probably makes permutations more compelling, but who knows.

Critical affs - I ran primarily K affs in college eons ago. I have coached teams who have read K affs. I have judged many debate rounds where K affs have been read. I think I'm pretty middle of the road and am around equally likely to vote for one or not. I am probably an easier sell on a carded or well explained Neg TVA on Framework than many other judges.

I am in my 8th year of debate. Fourth year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East. I previously coached at the Barstow School, the Pembroke Hill School, and Lawrence Free State.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: October 12th, 2024. Pre-Heritage Hall.

General:

Debate is a technical game. Any argument is at play as long as it is complete. This means I could care less if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate.

Arguments are complete when they contain a claim, warrant, and impact. I have a higher threshold for "completeness" than most. Arguments made or extended without a reason, or without comparison to your opponent's arguments, are not complete and matter less than those that are. This applies equally to "answered" and "dropped" arguments---repeating the statement "x was dropped" 50 times does not make it true, but extending it with a warrant and implicating it in the debate does.

I am a policy debater at heart---I almost always go for a DA and/or CP. I very rarely go for the K, and always defend a plan. I've been in a lot of clash debates, but that does not mean I am subject matter expert in them.

I care a lot about this activity, and know you likely do as well. That means I will try my hardest to render the most accurate decision even in debates I am the most uncomfortable. I don't care about clout, number of TOC bids, or anything in between. I do care about clear, concise, and technical debating.

That means I will try to give as thorough feedback as possible, and I implore you to ask me as many questions as you want. If you disagree with the decision, let's talk about why. If you were unsure about an argument in the debate, let's talk about how to answer it in the future.

I tend to find the link of any argument to be far more important than any other part of the debate. Whether its a DA, K, or T argument, identifying why the AFF does or does not do something tends to be central to how I write my decisions---I've made many, many decisions precisely on the link, or lack thereof.

Procedure:

I flow on paper. I write notes and my RFD on paper. This means pen time is a must. Spreading full speed into your computer means I will likely miss things, and if you choose not to slow down, I will feel no remorse for doing so.

I begin each decision by writing down everything relevant on an extra piece of paper, and the AFF / NEG arguments for either. I then go through and evaluate each individual argument, as well as how deciding it one way or the other implicates the debate writ large.

I will give my RFD by reading off of the notes I wrote. It will likely sound like a debate speech, and be organized in the way I processed the debate in my head.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

Reasonability is meaningless. Go for an interpretation that includes your AFF, and has offense that outweighs the NEG's.

Vague plans that barely modify the language of the resolution frustrate me. You can win on plan text in a vacuum, but your speaks will drastically improve if you go for something else.

Specificity matters---you shouldn't just describe your impact as "so many AFFs based on this mechanism" or "so many DAs we cannot read", but instead about specific arguments your opponent's interpretation removes. I care far more about 1-2 good pieces of NEG ground lost, or 1-2 strategic AFFs lost, than blanket statements without contextualization.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

Fairness can be an impact. So can clash. I am agnostic to which is better.

I find AFF teams that go for a tricky counter-interpretation intended to solve NEG offense, with a small bit of differential offense, to be far more persuasive than broad impact turns to T.

I find NEG teams that go for a unique, contextualized TVA far more persuasive than any switch side debate argument. Just reading a TVA alone is insufficient, it must be explained in a way that bothaccesses an in-road to AFF discussions andattempt to solve the AFFs impacts.

I find technical concessions in these debates mattering far more than big picture, framing questions---if the NEG has dropped the "small schools DA" or the AFF has dropped "T is a procedural, means case cannot outweigh"---extend it, explain it, and implicate it to their strategy.

Disadvantages:

Turns case matters the most to me---both "impact turns case" and "link turns case". I end up finding myself concluding close debates based on mishandled turns case arguments. Likewise, I find AFF turns the DA equally persuasive.

Politics is dead, but no one acts like it. Just finding a single card about some piece of legislation, attaching a "plan decks PC" card, and a generic democracy impact does not meet the burden of proof. Politics DAs about legislation being actively debating, where the president or speaker of the house is taking an active role in negotiations, are far more persuasive.

It frustrates me that these don't exist on the IPR topic. It equally frustrates me that we continue selecting high school debate topics without ensuring there is adequate and balanced AFF and NEG ground. If you write a DA intrinsic to the AFF or the topic, and go for it in front of me, your speaks will reflect it.

Counterplans:

Process CPs bore me, but I understand their necessity. I'd prefer if the counterplan competed off of words unique to the resolution rather than "should is immediate and certain".

I think perm do the CP is far more persuasive and defensible than an intrinsic perm---find reasons the CP is not functionally competitive, and extend those, rather than defending an arbitrary, unjustifiable argument.

Competition is not topicality, and "the AFF is certain for DAs but not for CPs" is a defensible statement. I find the question of howcould the AFF be implemented to be distinct from whatshould AFFs look like.

Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team. That doesn't mean you shouldn't extend it if you are winning it, but it equally means you shouldn't proliferate theory arguments and go for whatever was under covered. Proliferating bad arguments does not improve your chance of victory.

Kritiks:

I find 2NRs that go for framework to be far more persuasive than those that go for the alternative. I personally believe the AFF ought to weigh the plan, but so many debaters are horrendous at defending why.

I find the link turn and permutation to be a more persuasive AFF strategy than the impact turn. I think if the AFF can be in the direction of the alternative, or can resolve portions of NEG offense, then it is likely the permutation can overcome the links to the plan.

Performative contradictions matter a lot to me---they are not reasons to reject the team, but basically zero the chance I think you can win a reps argument.

AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go along way.