Hello, I'm Bennett! I'm the assistant debate coach at Sumner Academy and a member of the Kansas State University Debate Team. I debated all four years of high school and competed in the KDC open division, so I'm quite familiar with the activity. A few things:

File Share: I would pref SpeechDrop, but if needed add bennettaddink52@gmail.com to the chain.

Topic Knowledge (24-25): I find this topic very intriguing. I would say I'm adequately knowledgeable, but I love learning new things so intrigue me! This the world of IP, so the squo is pretty fast-changing so contextual analysis is very important on this topic.

Philosophy- I treat debate as a space for education and the simulation of change. This space creates the future of our nation- producing knowledgeable policy-makers, lawyers, activists, scholarly critics, and forward-thinking members of society. As a judge, I seek to make this activity welcoming and accessible. In other words, don't be toxic please! Prioritize being good humans over good debaters, if I feel like its a minor concern with this it won't affect my decision, but I will reflect that in speaker points. Speed is fine, just have clean and readable docs.

DA's- I need a clear calculus and DA story in order to vote on a DA, if I don't understand the story by the end of the 1NR then its gonna be hard to win in the 2NR.

CP's- I need to be assured the CP adequately avoids the aff impacts in order to vote on it and it needs clear Net Benefits. I'm familiar with CP and competitiveness theory, so use what you see fit.

Topicality- I will typically not consider this a voting issue unless necessary. I default to competing interpretations but if you don't give me clear voters by the 2nr I typically won't vote on it.

Kritiks- I think the K debate is fun, and if it is run correctly flowed consistently I consider them voting issues. A few things here: I default to the policymaker framework, so in order to vote for a K I need a clear framework to do so. I have ran with Cap, SettCol, Empire, Neolib, and Security K's in the past, but am familiar with Identity K's (Race, Fem, Queerness, etc.). For K aff's, I need to know what the ballot means and what my role as a judge is in the room. If I don't have that by the end of the 1a, it'll be tough to get my vote.

Speed- I can typically tolerate high speed. As long as you are persuasive and logical. I will verbally say "clear" if it is too fast.

Complete disclaimer, I type kinda loud so if it gets unbearable let me know you won't hurt my feelings :)

Let me know if you need any kind of accommodations, i.e. dimmed lights, sit while speaking, etc. If there is a medical thing (like a sugar spike/drop) please let me know. Don't use your prep to resolve an issue such as that. If something like that happens in the middle of a speech, pause your time and take care of yourself please.

Any form of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other biased discrimination is not tolerable and will result in your loss of my ballot and a referral to tournament staff. I trust debaters to not welcome this into this sacred space of education, so I hope not to see any problems of this kind.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round. Have fun and good luck!

PS: If you manage to make me laugh then I'll give you +1 speaker points. Love humor in debate!!!!

Any questions about feedback can be directed to bennettaddink52@gmail.com or baddink@ksu.edu

I am a third year debater who is new to judging. I can keep up with most arguments and keep a decent flow. However, please do not spread! It makes it incredibly difficult for me to follow your arguments, so your stronger points will likely be drowned out by the speed of your voice. As for argumentation preferences, I am open to anything except Kritiques. You can try to run a Kritique; but unless it is exceptional or pertains heavily to the resolution, I am unlikely to vote on it. I love disadvantages with strong links and solvency arguments, so please run those all round. My only additional preference is please do not just read evidence in a round and expect it to speak for you. Back up every piece of evidence with analytical reasoning. If you read evidence and do not expand upon it, do not expect my vote. Otherwise, I am excited to hear what you have to contribute to the debate round. Have fun and be confident!