Tabroom.com

KSHSAA 6A 4 Speaker Regional at Lawrence Free State

2024 — Lawrence, KS/US

4-Speaker Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Brenda Alvarez Blue Valley North

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 5:59 AM EST

Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

Riley Anderson Community Judges

Monte Asisian Community Judges

Emma Atherton Community Judges

Madelyn Atkins Shawnee Mission South High School

Seth Barton Blue Valley Northwest

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 8:17 AM CST

My Background:

My name is Mr. Barton and I was previously the head coach of the Blue Valley Northwest Debate Squad from the Fall of the 2021 school year through the Fall of the 2022 school year. I graduated from Park Hill High School, in Kansas City, Missouri, where I participated in three years of debate & forensic events. The events I competed in were primarily: Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public-Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, Policy Debate, Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking, and International Extemporaneous Speaking. I competed in a few other events, but those were the main events I competed in. In my time competing in high school, I earned the rank of "outstanding distinction" in the National Speech & Debate Association and received numerous accolades as well.

I am also a passionate social studies educator. Debate is a very valuable/noble activity because of the skills it teaches students. Critical thinking, learning to cite sources properly, learning to build arguments, and learning to appeal to specific audiences are just a few of the amazing skills that debate imparts to students.

My Paradigm:

In order for the affirmative team to win, the plan must defend and retain all of the stock issues, which are Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality. For the negative to win, they need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. At the end of the round, I will compare the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the negative's status-quo position. Whichever side of the debate better explains their position and their arguments will be the winner of the round. Quality of evidence is very important in terms of making credible arguments. I consider rebuttals to be the most significant opportunity to show off your refutation prowess. In the rebuttals, focus on the big picture, that is, the most significant, hard-hitting arguments you/your opponents have made in the round. I don't place an enormous amount of importance on the quantity of your arguments, rather, the quality of them and the degree to which you were clear or unclear when making your arguments. Remember, debate is ultimately an exercise in communication. Please enunciate. I want to hear well reasoned, logical arguments backed up with solid evidence, presented in an aesthetically appealing fashion. In addition to this, please be a polite. It's certainly fine to be disagreeable in a debate round, but don't cross the line and become mean or degrading to your opponents in any way. If you do cross that line, that will certainly translate into a deduction from your speaker points and more than likely a loss of the round.

Important Notes:

Your quality of argumentation will determine whether you win or lose the round. Your arguments need to be comprised of a compelling claim, relevant data, a logical warrant, and a believable impact. Additionally, you need to weigh impacts. Speed is not preferred, and you need to be understandable. If you are not understandable, you will risk losing the round. Kritiks are not preferred. I find that Kritiks are often designed to stifle debate, not encourage it. I see the stifling of debate as an incredibly destructive force in our society and in the world at large. No clipping: follow proper evidence ethics please. Please be in control of your emotions at all times during the debate. No racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise abusive behavior/rhetoric will be tolerated. Above all, be a good person. The best way to boost your ethos in any debate is to simply be a kind, compassionate, and courteous person, especially to your opponents, who you will be debating with. Please note that the above mentioned traits are not the same thing as signaling virtue or being fake. I will be able to tell the difference. Thanks in advance for striving to appeal to my judging paradigm.

Connor Brown Community Judges

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 9:43 AM CST

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.

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.

Azja M Butler Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:58 PM CST

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

@ the Nano Nagle (HS LD / PF)

"Did you read x card..." or "Which cards did you skip" are QUESTIONS so the CX timer should be started, this mess is flighted so please don't waste my or the tournament's time.

Arguments have three parts: 1] Claim 2] Data/Evidence 3]Warrant -- if these are not present your chance of winning in front of me are low.

I primarily judge high school and college policy -- at the point in which you integrate policy arguments, norms, and techne is the point in which I evaluate the debate as a 1v1 policy debate. I will take no notes.

I promise I have no problem clearing you or your opponent so please don't clear one another -- if it's actually unclear I will more than likely beat you to it.

I don't like having to read evidence in place of you all actually debating/making arguments. That being said if your evidence is just a series of one-liners / a sentence long, only partially highlighted I prob won't take your stuff seriously.

Don't read Kant in front of me and expect me to see the debate the way you do -- if you don't know that means: Don't read it.

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + Planless Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Carolyn Cook Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 3:41 AM CST

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

Jason Cook Shawnee Mission South High School

Maili Cotter-Brown Blue Valley

Brody Cunningham Blue Valley

Samantha Feinberg Shawnee Mission East High School

Brooklynn Joyce Hato Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 9:36 AM EST

Brooklynnjhato@gmail.com

University of Kansas’27

she/her

Top–

I have debated critically for most of my debate career. Though, growing up in Kansas policy and stock issues debates are not foreign to me. I encourage you to debate the way you’ve invested. Warranted analysis, ample judge instruction, and framing arguments in rebuttals are necessities. I flow straight down, I think disclosure is good.

Do not take cross ex as prep, do not brush past cross ex…it’s literally a speech
Please don't prompt/do the repeating thing with your partner, just say the argument i’ll flow it
I flow on my computer, but I’m not typing at 3000x speed
I read evidence during the debate. Clipping = L

Policy v K–

I assume aff get’s to weigh the plan at the start of debate. Fw is important. Quality line by line in the 2ac is important. “Our threats are real/extinction outweighs” to set up that link turn + alt does nothing slam dunk #period! If the negative has not isolated a mechanism to resolve links/impacts, I am very liberal to a “you went for a non UQ da…here’s the permutation” 2ar.

For the negative–

Link specificity is good, whether that is links to the plan, performance, or representations is up to you. I prefer “alt solves the links” over “our fw interp solves our fw offense” but do you. I am most familiar with black feminism, anti-blackness, capitalism critiques, and arguments surrounding affect. Buzz words are bad over explaining is good. I understand being the 2n that has a lot of floating offense, judge instruction for how this frames out aff engagement/impacts is necessary. I’ve always been a 2A so I love a good case throw down, best K 2n’s save 1-2 min of the 2nr to obliterate the case.

Planeless Affs:

I believe affs should be in the direction of the resolution or have a topic link. I should have a clear articulation of what the aff does, who/what it's good for, and why the ballot is necessary. Your performance should not be abandoned in the middle of the debate/you didn't make it important. Going for the impact turn is good, going for the counter interp plus "we have defense to your model, you don't" is great!

FW:

There is a difference between the 1ac having a critique of the topic vs the resolution–critique of the resolution is neg ground and should be exploited in these debates.

The TVA is gas and the aff answers are probably trash. The SSD/Stasis good 2nr's good. I don't evaluate fairness as "you broke the rules catch an L" but "if competition/fairness is true, only a universal stasis point is able to determine contestable debates that are predictable [clash args]" No case debating in the 2NR is probably going to be an L.

LD:

Tricks: please don't

Phil: Probably don't but I can manage, heavy on the explanation, i’m always unclear where y'all are generating offensive from. Clear judge instruction is your friend

No I don’t disclose speaks.

The aff goes before the off.

Emma Hefty Lawrence Free State High School

Parker Hopkins Lawrence Free State High School

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 10:27 AM CST

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.

Ezra Joseph Community Judges

Quinn Largent Blue Valley Northwest

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 4:43 PM CST

Quinn Largent pronouns: They/Them/she/her (dont screw up pronouns for people its a 1 time freebie before im dropping you but theory can be read at any point)

Debate history: Olathe East Debate 2020-2023 KCKCC 2024 - present (NFA - LD -- reading basically exclusively CP/DA/T --- Parli --- reading K both sides one off --- Policy -- yet to come)

Email: largentquinn@gmail.com

Email me questions, please. (paradigm last updated 12/10/24)

DONT TRY SHAKE MY HAND PLS I FEEL SO BAD SAYING NO

Trad LD,PFD,Congress,IEs paradigms all below

TLDR: Tech > Truth. I'll adapt to you.

post-rounding is chill you deserve to question my decision while I reserve the right to make one and I am glad to answer any questions you have. (seriously if you think I just dropped the ball lmk)

Read ur rehighlighting dont just insert it this is a communication event.

Novice debate:just be nice to each other debate how you please and I will give verbal decision and feedback feel free to ask as many questions as you want about the round or debate generally I will always answer to the best of my ability

All debates are performances. how you perform is up to you.

Args that I will not vote for becuase i beleive they are morally wrong and don't deserve a spot in debate: any ist and phobic good arg OBVI, Israel good, Inequality good, any theory relating to ones appearance or clothing. (updating as I see more i wont punish you if its not on this list but will add) I will literally vote on anything else. Break every rule u want just defend it and win.

I want debate to be a safe space but I KNOW it's not. so I will vote on out-of-round issues. (prefer proof being had because im pretty convinced by the other team just going you can't prove it)

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy how you debate doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love it because i know what its like to have judges that hate the style you love so they don't try to judge it. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges. like its your debate not mine who cares what I think

All thoughts below are pretty much meaningless rather then showing you some unconcous biases I may bring coming into the round but ive voted against them pretty often so far.

Specifics for adapting in the round:

----- Logistics/Presentation -----

Call me whatever I don’t care.

Put me on the email chain or whatever ur using.

I will also auto-vote for the other team if they ask for accommodations for their disability and you don’t listen to them. That is messed up and shouldn’t be rewarded. I have a 1 strike policy if it's an honest mistake and the other team doesn't notice. but they can run theory at any mistake

Speed is fine go as fast as you want ill clear u if I need to --- I do flow on paper tho Im stubborn and refuse to move to a computer so pen time is cool this means not having 70000 different anayltics in 2 second I can't flow that fast.

I have gotten more annoyed over time about open CX the longer ive been in debate. its Fine for a couple questions but I dont like it when it just feels like one person is awnsering every question. the lines arbitrary but we all kinda know what I mean. (this will only hurt speaks not the round)

----- Plan AFFs -----

just explain why what arguments you are winning mean you win the round.

I will vote on presumption (or other defensive stock issues)

vagueness Is a real arg. plan texts shouldn't just be the res. if we are going to pretend to be policy makers lets make a policy.

By the end of the round i should be able to tell you what the aff does and how it solves the impacts if i cant i wont vote aff.

For soft left affs --- you should have a small adv that everyone knows is true and a bad thing and then a massive framing page it will make your life 10 times easier

LD affs: if you defend res --- you better have fire link debate or should focus on I/L stuff imo --- less generic your advs don't really change how easy it is to get a link just makes case debate outside the impact level harder --- if you read Plan text everything above applies.

----- K AFFs -----

K aff vs FW: K affs are good for debate. the aff should be using the aff to do some sort of turn against fw.--- i think a lot of aff and neg teams don't do enough turns case analysis against both sides. doing that will make my ballot a lot less frustrating.

how negs should go for FW: just dont have a generic FW make it contextual to the round or the aff. less generic the better

KvK: more spec the link the better. im not just looking at the method im looking for how the link implicates the aff and what it means for the method. I dont fully understand no perm arguments in these rounds but hey if your winning on the flow due to concessions pop off.

explain the jargon and then use the jargon in the round. Dont just use jargon for the sake of jargon.

Teams should be doing very heavy method explanation in front of me. presumption ballots look really good when the aff can't actually defend the method in cross or can't give a consistent explanation. explain what ur method looks like out of round in round or wherever ur method would take place.

Neg teams reads counterplans and DAs there normally are pretty good against some k affs. and often underutilized especially in LD.

LD K affs: a lot of y'all affirm the resolution through K lit this is fire --- I think these affs should have a top level theory that answers everything DAs/CPs etc. if you affirm the res then critique the state if they are the actors in the res you might be screwed because you will definitely link back 95% of the time. Negs against this shouldn't change their off Strats if they affirm the res they will link so go for it. I do think K v K is a really underrated option against these affs because they still affirm the res their k lit prolly links back. Link back args are super underused and underrated.

----- T -----

EXTNED YOUR INTERP OR YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE. LIKE EXTEND IT EXPLICITY

I have experience reading and going for T pretty consistently

You dont need a defenition for T just an interpertation. You dont need it because the interp is the model of debate you have chosen. You need a defenition for predicability and precison tho. this would also open u up to ur interp being unpredictable and impossible to prep.

case list makes your life easier. but isnt neccasary. TVA on how affs can still solve their impacts a topical way is always appreciated

i default to competing interps. but ive started to understand reasonability to be a viable option when paired with why debating the specific T the neg running is impossible.

----- CPs -----

Condo: I'll vote if u win it. this does not mean I have a preference for less or more advocacys run none run 30 I do not care. win the debate is all that matters.

Treat perm do the CP like a t debate when defining words meaning you get this perm why is that good just reading two different definitions without comparison means nothing to me and forces judge intervention prolly for the neg since the aff presented the arg in the first place.

Neg: have a net benefit. with good explanation on how you are mutually exclusive --- either perm links to da or just how the CP and aff can't work together.

Don't just shoot perms at me IE don't just go perm do both. say perm do both --- (insert explanation on how this works)

Judge kick: if you want me to. say it and have a warrant (needs to start in the block at the latest so we can actually have a debate on it) if you don't want it say why it's bad and have a warrant. I default to not judge kicking

theory: im good for all types of counterplans consult delay etc. but im just as good for theory saying why these are bad. ill vote for it all. most theory prolly ends up at the level of just reject the argument but can easily be reject the team just make warrants. Ive ran and won on delay and consult cps. I've also won on theory for why these are bad.

----- DAs -----

NEG: do whatever you want. dont just spew random econ theory at me tho i have no clue what most of that means. Spec link > Generic links. if link is generic i need contextualzation in the block please. do case turns anyasis thats alwasys cool.

Politics DA: most ptx DAs are missing actual ev saying anything. Have good U ev that says PC high low now or wtv or that trump wins now or something like that. have the link actually say the X thing causes PC to die or biden to lose. like I don't need it super spec if the other team concedes it but ill be very convinced by the aff just going this is to broad to possibly Link to us paired with a thumper that would fit the broad link and yeah its hard to come back from that.

There is such thing as zero risk of a DA. This can be mitigated by framing arguments about what parts of the DA control other parts of it.

------ Ks -----

If you are not black don't run afropessism. its auto loss with as low as speaks I can give. I as a Non Black person when I have literally only been told doing that is a bad thing cannot just ignore that.

More teams should be making link back arguments to supercharge Condo IMO.

The FW page shapes the rest of the debate It shifts how I view the round please explain how either you fall under the FW and how you operate on FW

I am decently well versed in K literature. this shouldn't shift how you debate in front of me just cause I know what you are trying to say doesnt mean you are saying it.

Link: after doing K debate for a while good K teams will devolpe more links in the block based off the actions taken and said by the affirmative and start to frame this as independent reject teams/links because they cause the impact of the K within debate. generic link is fine if explained i defenitly prefer links that are more specfic but generics dont upset me. and anyatic links are good and real links if explained well enough like i may not have a card on it but if someone calls something "idiotic" that can easily be explained as a link for a disability K

Impact: should be explained in how it implicates the aff.

ALT: for me to vote neg on the alt i need a couple things the first is how it solves the impacts of the K. second is why it competes. things i love but arent needed: why it solves the aff. and how it works in the implication of the round or what it looks like in the post fiat world of the neg.

You dont gotta have an alt for me to vote neg just have a link and impact and good root cause work creates a pretty easy presumption ballot. link can also be used offensilvey like a DA

If the blocks makes it clear you haven’t thought about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will probably reflect it poorly.

K FW: extend your interp otherwise you dont have you a FW. Ur fw should have an offensive reason for me to prefer it. FW can be used to get links to the K

LD paradigm

------ Prog LD -----

Look at policy stuff.

Tricks: tech > truth when I began debate I thought these were bad and hated them. now i realize teams should just win the debate against them on 1 of two levels.

Theory: they shouldn't be in debate and why

Debate them: why the theory is untrue bad etc.

------ Trad LD -----

i think in trad round V/VC matters a decent amount obvi as it decides literally what impacts i care about everything is filtered through that so to win the round do a lot about how ur impacts fit under the V/VC so i dont have to judge intervene about which impacts mean what in context of the value if i have to do that i will be sad and speaks will be affected :(

Defenitions also are cool what do certain words mean in the context of the round and how do they shift how i vote in the round i alwasy love LD teams that can do this.

PFD paradigm

just debate ill flow and ill vote on offense. i don't really see how this is much different then policy minus a few things. Tech>truth ill vote on anything

Look i love debate and this community of speech and debate just because i may not enjoy this event doesn't mean i wont put all my effort into judging it when i can tell the competitors love this event because i know what its like to have judges that hate the event you love so they don't try to judge that event. i will do everything in my power to not be one of those judges.

Congress paradigm

I understand there are people who like this event. Im not one of them. if I'm ur judge in the back of the room ill do my best to match ur effort into the round if you make a mockery of congress :) ill join you when I'm writing of the ballot if you take it serious ill do it

how ill elavulate speeches. is 3 sections the first is ur content how good is ur facts and what ur saying second is your analysis of the debate this means responding to past people who have spoke or how well you can predict future points made against you. and finally style this can be funny jokes passionate speaking etc.

Now to hop off my soapbox. go cook and have fun because lets be honest if your reading my paradigm and scrolled to find it you are probably winning :)

IE paradigm

If I'm judging you in IE I'm sorry

------ Extemp -----

I did this event ig. use evidence and expand on that ev to develop a cool point. more recent the ev the better if you know ur ev is old try to explain to me why it should still be applicable to ur question.

Funny jokes are good don't just bore me for 7 minutes with just facts.

tie ur intro back into the piece throughout all of it.

------ Prose/Poetry -----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators and me to prepare myself

Once again as a prewarning sorry.

This event now allows movement so use it. you should have fluid story and characters I can differentiate.

use your book like its a prop use that fact and make it look cool

------ DI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Ive seen some really good DIs and when they are good I love this event when bad I hate it.

once again sorry.

characters should all be able to be seen apart.

check your object permanence if you have a cane you cant randomly drop it and suddenly be holding something else and just magically have a cane later on again.

have a good climax change your emotion occasionally I get its dramatic but its not all 10 minutes of just sad there should be happy moments or different types of sadness that gets portrayed throughout the piece

------ HI-----

Once again sorry

Amount of HIs I've laughed at: 3 (4 if we count pity laugh) this doesnt mean I dont find it funny I just dont audibly laugh often,

i think a major problem in HI is that it focuses almost to much on the technical ability of the acting rather then if it is actually funny like yes the techinal matter of how well we can tell the difference between characters and how great the blocking is. but if youre piece isn't funny whats the point. you can make it funny so do it. THE MOST CRINGE PIECES CAN BE FUNNY IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING.

like if you make me laugh your prolly placing high for me.

object permance still matters (check DI for example of what i mean)

how understanding of your story is great still.

having extrandionory blocking ability is always a plus and can even lead to being funny.

OHHHH adding this after forgetting. DONT JUST LIVE IN 1 MANIC QUICK ACTION EPISODE. there should be a multitude of emotions anger happiness sadness ETC. i get its supposed to be funny but you have calm moments the funny moments BECOME SO MUCH MORE FUNNY.

------ POI-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

What i want from a poi is 3 things 1. to be informed about whatever topic 2. great blocking and use of the book.

3. a fluid story.

if you do all of these things imma love your POI and i love poi as an event.

Object permance is great (check di for example)

TBH combine just about every section i have wrote and combine it.

------ INFO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

props props props. Cool ones and fun uses of the rules it allows will be amazing like that's what makes this event unique lets use it and kill it.

i judge an info using 2 main factors. 1. is how well am i informed about your topic. 2. am i also entertained during it. this can be done through cool props or just a very interesting topic and passionate speaking.

Obvi don't have a call to action but having why your piece is more important then it may seem is amazing or having something about how your topic effects the real world is always cool.

------ OO-----

GIVE A TW I wont leave the room but it allows spectators to and it allows me to prepare myself

Once again sorry

judge this through 3 things 1. is how well am i informed 2. am i entertained and 3. how likely i am to engage in your call to action.

i love seeing OOs about how their topic relates to our community or whats around us.

Max Lillich Community Judges

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 8:37 AM EST

Debated at Lawrence Freestate for 4 years

Debated for a very short period at the University of Kansas

General Notes

I tend to prioritize arguments based in more truth (meaning arguments based in truth require less tech than those that aren't), but that said unless you give me a different way to evaluate the debate a dropped (or undercovered) argument becomes a true argument.

Please don't be pretentious or condescending there is a different between being aggressive with an argument and just being a jerk. Along with that if you are racist/misogynistic you will lose the round and get a 0.

I have always been a 2A, do with that information what you will.

I have been out of the activity for about four years now and don't judge regularly. With that said my ability to flow is not what it once was, so I may miss parts of your speech if you spread through analytics at full speed.

I am a big fan of Ethos and persuasiveness and I think that this may be somewhat of a lost art with many debaters just spreading through prewritten blocks as fast they can in their rebuttals. In my opinion a slow, technical, and logical rebuttal is almost always better than a fast rebuttal that does not have the same level of tech and logic.

DA's: I think these are the negative's best argument (obviously depending on the topic). Show me why the comparative risk of the DA o/w's the aff's impacts or vice-versa. The more specific the link the better

CP's: I really don't like cheating CP's and my time as a 2A probably biases me, but you need to make theory arguments against them. If a CP has a high risk of solving the aff it is easy for me to vote on any risk of a DA. Aff's need to prioritize offense against CP's and recognize most 1AC cards have embedded warrants that can be used as solvency deficits.

T: Develop your internal links and explain why your version of the topic is truly necessary and better than the alternative world.

K's: I am fine evaluating these arguments, but it is much more likely that you will win my ballot if you can explain your theory with examples in the context of the aff and not the topic writ large. Additionally, I am probably not familiar with the literature, so make sure you give clear explanations.

Case: In most of the debates I judge I feel that case is underutilized. It is the most important thing the aff has at its disposal to combat arguments and a great avenue to victory for the negative in just about any capacity is mitigating the risk of the case.

K-Affs: I would not classify myself as a clash judge. I think that fairness is an impact. I am open to voting either way in these debates, I think the most important part of these debates is articulating a clear vision of your version of debate/the topic under your interp.

Jordan Martin Lawrence Free State High School

Last changed on Fri December 18, 2020 at 6:17 AM CST

MartinJordanP@JohnDeere.com

Most of this is stolen from my good friend, Luke Hartman.

Background:

I debated for four years at Spring Hill High School (KS) and one semester at Kansas State University. I judged several tournaments a year every year from 2015 to 2018, and sparingly since then, but trying to get back into it.

General Comments:

I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate, but again I am open to other arguments if you justify them.
Logic > tech > truth
I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments.
The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
I love cross examination. If your cross examination is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC includes 2 Ks and 5 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not very well versed in high-theory critical literature, so try to avoid burying me in jargon. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. I'm open to listening to these arguments, but if the offending team apologizes, I think we should all be willing to move on and learn from the experience to improve all of individual lives.

Max McCarty Blue Valley North

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 6:59 AM EST

Max McCarty

---updated before BVSW 2024---

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Debate Experience

I debated at BVSW in high school, focusing on the TOC circuit during my senior year, where we consistently cleared. In college, I competed for a year at UTD, attending all major tournaments as well as some local D3 events. From 2018-2019, I worked at the SDI as a debate judge and speech reviewer. Over the past 6+ years, I’ve been actively coaching high school debate, first at LFS until the 2022-2023 season and now at BVN. Throughout my coaching journey, I’ve worked with students at all levels, from novices to some of the top competitors in the country.

--Top level things --

At the end of the day, this is a communication activity!

Reading paragraphs of analytics at full speed will get you no where. I think that students find that if "they put them in the doc" all is forgiven. I could care less, I am flowing your speech, not the doc.
Means that cards should be highlighted appropriately - I grow increasingly frustrated when reading cards that are incoherent because they consist of a bunch highlighted sentence fragments.
Line by Line and direct clash has to happen! The more the better! Large overviews are often confusing and messy. As they are arguments that could be contextually explained far better doing line by line and comparative analysis than the same overview every speech.
Specificity matters, I see this in both "ideological types" of debate. For policy teams an example is: reading 10 cards to prove a link to a bad PTX da in the block is fine, but at some point quality analytical spin that tells me why they matter or interact with specific portions, mechanisms, results, etc of the aff is equally as valuable. For K teams, an example is impact explanations, how they interact with the specifics of the aff, round, what it means for the specific debate are important as I often find these explanations to be vague.

not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do
I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.

Tech > Truth

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. In general, I am probably not the best for these debates outside of more "basic" ones (Cap, Security, Set-Col). This is because I’m not well read in lit at all. Does not mean I have not judged many debates outside of that, but with me being so much less involved than I used to and never reading that type of literature I would rather be upfront. If your argument falls outside of the above, ways you can help me are context, specificity, and direct clash and line by line. First and foremost I have to have an understanding by the end of the round what the specific link to the aff is, and how the alternative resolves it. Second, direct clash and line by line works in your favor as it helps me more clearly see where you are winning offense and adds to your explanations.

More general comments here - I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. the My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

Katie McGaughey Community Judges

Last changed on Thu August 1, 2024 at 11:31 AM CST

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 Kinesiology & Physiology 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 western Missouri, and also serve as an Assistant Debate & Forensics coach at Lawrence Free State High School. Sko' Birds!

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. I am a big fan of Ethos and persuasiveness and I think that this may be somewhat of a lost art with many debaters just spreading through prewritten blocks as fast they can in their rebuttals. In my opinion a slow, technical, and logical rebuttal is almost always better than a fast rebuttal that does not have the same level of tech and logic.

SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative. Also, spend time on why each card matters to the case, the status quo, and your argument. I don't care about the author's background so don't spend valuable time on it.

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: I'm willing to listen, 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.

The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and tell me how to vote and why. 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. I am open to answering questions about my style of judging before the round, and always feel free to email me post-round with any questions.

Evan Michaels Blue Valley Northwest

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 2:56 PM CST

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

Just a heads up for spreaders: I have an audio processing disorder, so please send your analytics on the document if you are planning on them playing a large role in the round. Also, please give me pen time. Clear and slightly slower signposts will suffice.

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

AJ Persinger Community Judges

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2024 at 6:32 AM CST

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.

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!

Mac Phrommany Blue Valley

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 7:27 AM EST

Yes, I do want to be on the e-mail chain: mphrommany@bluevalleyk12.org

I was a debater for Spring Hill High School. Coach for Manhattan High School 2017-2024. I now Coach for Blue Valley High School in Stillwell, KS.

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric (or most procedurals for that matter) if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but they have to be competitive. I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Random stuff for this year: 2024-2025

--- I need to see some fantastic evidence comparison this year. The literature feels very divided on what conditions best generate things like innovation.,

--- I have a hard time believing IPR will sway the election

---I think the K ground this year is fantastic

--- I will listen to a generic Strengthening Enforcement T debate. I'm not quite sure of how I feel about this argument yet.

EC Powers Community Judges

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:51 AM MST

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Debated

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Coaching

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

ec [dot] powers [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com

College only: rockchalkdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Complete arguments contain three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Debate accordingly.

Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that change is bad. In general I enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and use that story to implicate other portions of the debate. I attempt to avoid judge intervention at all costs, I usually look for the easiest path to the ballot when deciding. I think that 3rd and 4th level explanation of arguments and why they matter is particularly important rather than just asserting something as true or dropped.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not. In addition, I think teams like to rely on their evidence far too much, while debate is a research activity I find that the art of argument has been lost. I think that making smart arguments from evidence already read is often better than unnecessary card spamming.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time. I will watch the time like a hawk, if you plan on conversing with your partner aboutdebate related things then you should plan on running a prep timer.

Judges that are unwilling to vote on condo bad are academically bankrupt and lying to you when they say they are “tech over truth”.

Every time someone reads animal wipeout, an angel loses its wings.

Hidden theory arguments, e.g. aspec on a T flow, is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding theory arguments will have a speaker point implosion.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and/or contact people if you find that their evidence has an ethics violation. If you have done that and the necessary changes have not been changed, I will vote on it. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game and up for debate.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (it is my initials if that helps with pronunciation).

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Lily Ren Blue Valley North

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 4:59 AM CST

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with topic-related jargon.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I won't vote on death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

27.5-27.9 - lost the debate and didn't do well

28-28.5 - you either won or lost but did okay

28.6 - 28.9 - you won and did well

29-29.5 - you did won, did great, will probably make it to elims

29.6-30 - you won and will probably win the tournament.

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author". I'm so sick of watching debates where both teams just say "they dropped this so extend it" - what is "it/that"? I will cap your speaks at 27.9 if you do this.

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission or generic topic related links. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't evaluate it. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that. I also think that teams need to clash more on standards and impacts.

Theory - if you go for it, do impact calc and contextualize it to the debate. I will not be convinced by pre-written blocks unless somehow the other team fumbles that badly.

Misc. - I really care about clash heavy debates, if it feels like both teams are just passing by each other without clash, I will be visibly annoyed and not giving anyone good speaks regardless of win loss. 2nr cards and 2ar cards are RARELY justified, I prefer not to deal with them.

Dustin Rimmey Community Judges

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 9:18 AM CST

Growing old is mandatory...growing up is optional!

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

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Mandatory Autobiography:

I debated in High School in the 1900's (Lansing HS, KS, '02), College 2002-2006 at ESU (RIP!), and coached at the following places: ESU (06-07), Topeka High School (2007-2024), Lawrence High (2024-present).

What I used to Read in the 1900's:

In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

My Coaching Present

For the first time in decades, I am not actively teaching a debate class. This means that if it comes to rounds which might get faster or more tech-y, my brain might take a second to boot up to these. If this is your cuppa, then take a second and slow down a little bit, let me get use to your voice and speaking pattern, and then once you see my odd nodding and moving back and forth, you are probably good to go off to the races!

My coaching past

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past two decades and a current middle school teacher, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarily be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Drew Schimmel Community Judges

Michael Shelton Community Judges

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:36 AM CST

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.

Austin Shively Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:27 AM CST

Last Updated: November 2023

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

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

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

POLICY DEBATE

* Put me on the email chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

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

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

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

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

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

Annemarie Smith Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:41 AM CST

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
Email chain is best
Wiki/Disclosure is good
Be organized with your flow
Slow down in the rebuttals

Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
Case turns and outweighs is good

Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
Internal net benefits are fun and good
I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
Tell me to judge kick things

I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

I dislike evaluating theory debates
I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

3 years of high school LD experience
I did very traditional LD in high school
I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

Emma Stammeyer Lawrence Free State High School

Alicia M Stout Community Judges

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 4:32 AM CST

DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NOT JUDGED ANY DEBATES THIS YEAR.

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: current law school student. recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coached policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed was my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

Kristen StoutHart Community Judges

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 7:29 AM CST

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

James Edward Vereen Hire

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2019 at 9:33 AM CST

I graduated from Free State '19. I currently debate at Emporia State University.

I'm rather fond of E-mails: james.e.vereen@gmail.com

I have judged 0 rounds on the topic.

There should be a saying, we all become our lab leaders eventually. My most formative lab leaders were Sean Kennedy (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=7445), Michael Eisenstadt (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6624), and Ian Bier (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6631). Reading any or all of these paradigms will teach you more about what arguments you should go for in front of me than a long list of my person pet-peeves ever could.

I'm comfortable judging anything at any rate of delivery. This is your debate and not mine. You make the arguments, and I'll evaluate them. I will usually or always flow on paper, so make sure that your front load warrants rather than authors, and signpost clearly.

If you extend a conceded argument that I don't understand, then that doesn't mean that I automatically vote on it, for some arguments that I'm not very familiar with, you may have to explain it at a 5th grade level before I feel like I can explain why I voted the other team down in a way that makes sense (this usually applies to K stuff that I'm not used to, policy stuff isn't usually that complex).

Impact calculus is rather important for me, I won most of my high school rounds on this because not many high school debaters in Kansas cerca 2018 (yes shade) know how to do this.

I don't really want to vote on stuff that I didn't see happen. I don't want to have to make a judgement call about the ethical conduct of people I just met, if something needs to be said, then say it, but really understand that I have a high threshold when it comes to these arguments.

K's are cool and aff's don't have to have plan texts, this isn't 2002 anymore. Your aff should probably make some meaningful departure from the status quo in some way. If your aff actually does nothing, then your going to want to pretend like it does something in front of me. People too often hold the opinion that K aff's break debate, I don't think this is true, reading framework solves the fairness imbalance greatly. If anything, the more K aff's there are, the better neg teams get at going for FW and problem is solved. However, K teams usually get the luxury of reading their aff cards on the neg being able to double their research output which makes debate a bit easier for them/us. As a result, K aff teams should explain their offense very clearly, and how that outweighs FW. The explanation threshold for K aff's is slightly higher for two reasons. First, to solve this fairness thing. Second, because understanding FW offense is easy, it's so easy to rap your head around.

I'd say I'm more familiar with securitization literature than anything else.

I have strong feelings about negative strategy. Just to provide an anecdote about why I feel the way I feel about this. I recently had a discussion with a friend regarding the utility of !D on the case. He said, "People should stop reading case d" because "they just read impact d anyway" and "That impact d is pointless when they just go for a counterplan[,] and it takes way longer for a 2a to answer a counterplan than a piece of impact d but a cp solvency advocates takes about the same time as impact d in the 1nc to read." He concludes, "so go like 15 off and your case mitigation just comes in the form of like 7 counterplans." While I don't think this is true because good aff's have unique internal link and solvency stories, I do think it puts undue pressure on the 2ac. I will vote on conditionality bad for many reasons, this is one of them. Most importantly, I prefer well thought out negative strategies that allow the 2ac strategic flexibility and adequate time per page, but then just beat the aff anyway because the 1nc was well thought out.

I will finish by adding that you should refrain from being rude in round. I'm not a huge fan of that stuff, but the ways that we express ourselves in debate is a learning process, and learning when and how you can dunk on the other team (and the room reading that has to happen for it to not come off as rude) is an invaluable skill that the activity provides for students and their ability to engage in agonistic public discussions.

Henry Walawender Community Judges

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 9:40 AM CST

Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com, smedocs@googlegroups.com

Current KU debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.

Assistant debate coach, Shawnee Mission East.

General.

For students doing prefs: do you assignments before the tournament. It will save you endless amounts of stress.

Debater wins rounds not cards. I am not a fan of argument styles which endlessly spam cards and request I evaluate the argument rather than making evidence comparison. I make decisions off my flow and only in circumstances when absolutely necessary I will look at evidence. This means that if the argument you have made is different from your card I will only evaluate the argument you have made. Debates where I don't have to look at evidence will have high speaks.

Judge instruction is vital. I attempt to minimize intervention as much as possible. I will not cross apply arguments to different parts of the flow without explicit instruction even if you think it might be intuitive. Framing is very very very important to me and makes giving the decision you want wayyyyy easier to me.

Good for clash debates, better for policy throwdowns.

Don't be afraid to over explain the legal jargon on this topic. I have basically no topic knowledge.

I flow CX to understand positions more clearly and occasionally as a took to check for lying.

Tech >>> Truth.

Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:

1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.

2. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.

I am very comfortable clearing you. If I have to clear you multiple times I will stop flowing. Clarity also involves volume btw.

I won't judge kick unless told to. Prefer this starts in the block not the 2nr.

Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.

Disclosure is good and I will vote for arguments that argue such. If you believe your opponent losing 30 min of preround prep will determine the direction of the debate for you that feels like a you problem. These arguments are best when their is proof of non or mis disclosure ie put me on the disclosure email or put a screenshot of it in the doc.

Clash Debates.

Is it un or non topical? Who knows.

I enjoy thinking about these debates and I think they are great thought experiments. Despite my voting record, I am generally neg leaning.

I vote negative when the negative has disproven the viability of the affs model for a sustainable, season long stasis of debate-ability AND justified, at least at some level, their interpretation of what debate should look like.

I vote affirmative when they have justified their model of debate. To me, this is best done when there is an impact turn to a neg standard/a DA to their model, AND a counter interp that resolves, or at least attempts to resolve both teams offense. It is not impossible to win without a counter interp, frankly it might even be more easy given how limits and ground are often uncontextualized to the counter interp, but I think I proving that your offense can be accessed at the same time as fostering quality debates is what convinces me the most.

It is important to note that these are different. Neg teams which narrowly focus on the fact that the aff is un-topical and thus over invest in the impact level of the debate will lose these debates in front of me. I am generally of the opinion that clash, fairness, limits, and ground are all good, but how we get access to these arguments are where these debates often fall apart. Because of such, I believe that most of this debate should take place on the counter interp level.

Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.

I believe debate is a game with pedagogical benefits, obviously this is not set in stone, but framing around this issue of what debate actual is and what benefits it can provide will help me judge these rounds. For instance, arguments that clearly identify debate is an innately competitive activity with benefits that can only be actualize in an environment which enables fair debates with in-depth clash help me realize that I should prioritize models which facilitate such should win the round.

I am also open to different interpretations of what debate should look like and what content it should facilitate. However, if that is your strategy, you should have a robust defense of what your interp is.

One of the most important things in these debates is clear identification of how internal links interact. Do structural factors like exhaustion of a certain group outweigh exhaustion caused by the limits DA? Questions like these are often what I ask myself when writing my decision and often they are unresolved by debaters which, to me, leaves too much in my hands when making the decision. The statement "X outweighs Y because Z," is my favorite thing to here in these debates.

TVAs are good and by the 2NR need to have explicit explanation of why they solve aff DAs. Otherwise, they are often not important in my decision because of a lack of application to the flow.

Kritical Affs.

I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Presumption. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff in the round is good or negation of the aff is good.

Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.

I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.

I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.

Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.

K v Policy.

When going for framework, the 2NR needs to clearly extend their interp, a net benefit to it, and how it applies to the aff interp. I have no idea what the argument "the 1AC is an object of research" actually means. Do I weigh the aff? Do you only get links off of the 1AC? Do links have to be to the plan mechanism or plan text? If not then to what do you and don't get links to? Do you need an alt? If so why not? All of these are often questions that are vitally important to my decision that are never answered.

It is also in the interest of the aff to resolve these questions. If they get links to word 1639 in card 4, in adv 3, that makes your predictability internal link way more believable then just blanket statements about Ks being unpredictable.

Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.

Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.

Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.

Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.

I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.

Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.

CPs.

You need to slow down on competition. I cannot flow 7 standards for functional competition good that are all half a sentence long when the 2NR will be neg flex and the topic is bad.

Process CPs are illegitimate to me. I think they are artificially contrived to create net benefits non germane to the case and reduce aff offense as much as possible. The worst of such are those which compete off of immediacy and certainty. Because of such I think limited functional intrinsic perms are not the abhorred argument that most believe. This does not mean I won't vote for them, and unfortunately, I vote for them often because of technical errors made by aff teams.

When going for functional competition besides justifying your theory of competition, I need a reason to prefer your interpretations of the words your counterplan competes off of. For instance, the 2NC must justify why competition off of immediacy is good and the 1AR should demonstrate it is bad. Otherwise I have no idea how to chose the more preferable definition.

Basically every judge ever would rather vote on a solvency deficit than competition. I am one of those judges. This doesn't mean I would never go for competition in front of me but If you are confident in a deficit that has an quantifiable/qualifiable impact go for it.

CPs should be legitimate and compete.

Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Artificial competition is bad.

Competition tricks are often not persuasive.

Competing interps > reasonability. Reasonability is underrated.

I will absolutely vote for "bad," horribly over limiting, or groundless interps as long as they are winning on tech. This is mostly due to a lack of offense extended by the aff in these debates.

Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can change my preference.

Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.

2ACs need to be responsive, do not drop 1NC impacts or internal links.

Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).

Theory.

Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.

Jeff Walker Community Judges

Jacob Wilkus Shawnee Mission East High School

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 12:00 PM CST

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 have judged close to 200 debates in my short 3.5 year tenure of judging.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com. I am not a fan of SpeechDrop or Doc Share, and would prefer an email chain.

Last Updated: December 16th, 2024.

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, and will have my computer half-shut. I will not actively look at the speech document during the debate unless a card being read peaks my interest. This means pen time is a must. Spreading full speed into your computer means I will likely miss things. If you choose not to slow down, I will feel no remorse for missing things.

I will attempt to line up arguments on my flow, but will resort to flowing straight down when that becomes impossible to ensure I write down everything. Teams that make this easier will receive high speaks, those that don't will receive low speaks.

I will open my computer during CX to write down the questions and answers in a notepad document, transcribing the wording as directly as possible.

At tournaments where oral RFDs are the norm, I will write my RFD on paper and only very limited comments or notes on the Tabroom ballot, and give my RFD based on what I wrote down. At tournaments where I am unable to give an oral RFD, I will write a thorough RFD and comments on the Tabroom ballot.

In close debates, I will re-inscribe the important parts of the 2NR/2AR onto a separate piece of paper. On this paper, I will write the implications of and answers to each point, and begin to construct my decision based on each minute part of the debate and my understanding of it. I will likely take until decision time in these debates.

In all other debates, where there are pretty clear pieces of offense being dropped or there is a clear winner, I will quickly write my RFD and give it as soon as possible after the 2AR to maximize time for questions.

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 both accesses an in-road to AFF discussions and attempt 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 how could the AFF be implemented to be distinct from what should 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 a long way.

Marcus Woodcock Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:05 AM EST

I'd like to be added to the email chain mwoodcock692@gmail.com

(he/him)

email chain >> speech drop

Experience:

Debating:

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

Debated two years at KU (alliances and antitrust)

Coaching:

Lansing (2020-2022)

Shawnee Mission South (current) :)

Top Level -

1. Tech over truth, the only scenario in which I may look towards truth rather than tech is as a means to break a tie in portions of debates that are extremely difficult to resolve (i.e. lack of clash)

2. Don’t let anything said in this paradigm discourage you from reading/going for any argument, the best debates are ones where people have devoted ample time in researching the argumentative positions they read. I enjoy debate and will put my best effort into my decision because of the ample work that debaters put into the activity should be seen and rewarded as such, which I believe requires judges to do the same.

3. If any arguments that are homophobic, racist, and etc. are presented you will lose the debate and be rewarded the least amount of speaks as possible. This also includes any other way that you may make the debate space less safe for people.

4. Taking CX as prep will be rewarded with lower speaks.

5. JUDGE INSTRUCTION! If you think that a portion of the debate should be the deciding factor, then tell me why that is and how I should evaluate it. The more judge instruction that you do, then the more happy you are to be with the decision I give.

Topicality -

I default to competing interpretations, if you believe I should evaluate this differently, then tell me to do so. Some big things that matter to me here is that I think both teams should have a robust explanation of what they think the topic should look like. I find limits to be more compelling than a loss of ground as internal links to the impacts that you are going for.

Impact comparison is still important here, like why does fairness outweigh education or the impacts that your opponents are going for. If the debate takes the course where both teams are going for fairness, then this should be done at the internal link level, but regardless there needs to be more impact comparison in topicality.

I think that I am pretty relaxed with my biases as to what aff's are topical and I like to think that I reward teams who invest research into these arguments and think that teams who read aff's that are perceived to be regarded as topical to the community should be punished for lazy debating on whether their aff is topical or not.

Critical Affs –

I prefer aff's have some relationship with the topic, I also want you to tell me what and how this relationship is established. I feel pretty comfortable adjudicating these debates but also believe that the more judge instruction you give me, the happier you will be. I also think that the more offense that you generate on the fw page, then the better position you put yourself in. I think if you are reading a version of an anti-cap lit based aff, then generating this offense can be more difficult, but not impossible. The ones that I have seen on this topic feel pretty defensive on fw and I think you should invest time into creating this offense.

For the neg --- I believe there is a trend where teams are choosing to read definitions that stop at Ericson, and/or some sort of evidence that is similar to it. I don't think this puts you in a position to win your limits offense and my threshold for aff defense and offense is increasingly more compelling. So, if this is your strategy, then you need to invest time into creating a vision of the topic that is actually limiting.

The 2nr should have some discussion of case, or tell me how fw interacts with the case page and give me ample judge instruction on why it should come first. Reading positions other than just framework are more enjoyable debate to watch, but fw debates can be equally as interesting as long as there is time devoted to it and your strategy.

Disads -

Not much to say here...

I think there has been a trend towards reading the least number of cards as possible, while there may be SOME cases where those cards make all the arguments needed, I will be sympathetic to new 1ar arguments should they be extended into the block.

Link specificity and spin are what I look for and reward if it is being done. Obviously, the more specific the link the better, but good spin can go a long way.

I like and reward aff strategies that straight turn disads and/or other offense generating strategies.

Counterplans –

Counterplans can make for interesting debates. I tend to side with the neg on pics and agent counterplans. I think other competition questions are typically decided on whichever team has invested more time in their strategy revolving around competition. Furthermore, I am more than happy and comfortable in adjudicating these debates, again judge instruction is important here.

With theory debates I think I am most compelled to reject the team only in context with condo but can be persuaded with other theory arguments if you are able to impact them out well enough. I enjoy watching aff teams double-down on condo and I don’t think there is a certain number of off that makes me more/less likely to vote on the argument, just win your interpretation if this is what the debate boils down to.

Kritiks –

The more specific of a link I think the better (this goes very any argument though) whether or not this is a link to the plan or the aff's performance, link spin can also go a long way. Pulling lines from evidence and contextualizing them to your link analysis is good. I do not think there must be an alternative in order to win the debate, just make sure you are wining other arguments that justify you doing this (i.e. framework). With these debates telling me what and why x matters are very important in framing my ballot.

With permutations I think the neg has to do more than just say, “all links are disads to the perm,” make sure to explain how they operate as such, and if you are going for the perm being intrinsic and/or severance make sure to explain why and tie an impact to it. On the flip side, I think that aff teams need to do a better job at answering each individual piece of offense to win a permutation (i.e. each link, disad, or solvency question) with a net benefit.

Case -

Don’t neglect case, it never hurts to extend some sort of defense or offense no matter how miniscule it may be. I think neg teams going for k’s sometimes get away with not going to the case page, if this happens make sure to use your aff.

I don’t understand the use of framing pages. They are often things that don’t matter if the neg just wins the disad or kritik that they are going for. I think the best examples of framing pages were affs written on the immigration topic and have since not seen one that was inherently offensive rather than defensive. The same goes for pre-empts. This is not to say don’t have a fed key warrant, but rather don’t just read a bunch of thumper cards or random pieces of impact defense. In this instance you should just read another advantage.

Login to Tabroom

KSHSAA 6A 4 Speaker Regional at Lawrence Free State

2024 — Lawrence, KS/US

4-Speaker Judges Paradigm List

Judges