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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed 1 year of debate in high school. Returned this year as a judge and enjoyed specific arguments with clear clashes. I prefer tangible arguments defended through impact calc throughout the round. Avoid overwhelming emphasis on arguments like theory and K's. If you speak too fast I will not be able to effectively take notes on your arguments and your evidence will lose weight in the round.

I've actively done policy debate for 7 years, volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years, and just recently started IDPA at UNC Charlotte. I've also done speech for 4 years (+ college) and have done everything from extemp to HI to POI so I'm very familiar with all the events.

For file share, I prefer https://speechdrop.net/ to e-mail chain, but I'll do whatever y'all want. (If you're scared to use speechdrop, don't be. It's super simple and intuitive and I can help with the set-up).

LD:

I did LD once in high-school, so I'd consider myself a flay judge in LD. In general, I think both sides should have good structure to their speeches, and have considerable clash especially with analytical arguments. Not a fan of shadow-extensions, at least say the author, date, and argument of what you're extending (though the warrants are equally as important to extend). I can handle speed, just don't spread (I don't think that's a thing in LD, Right?!) I'd like to be walked through both cases as if I was a toddler, even though I will probably be familiar with most of the arguments including philosophies, though I will genuinely struggle with technical words and jargon.

Policy Debate:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed. Also, don't just say the author when extending, I need the warrant/tagline too.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and I am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC). I'm also more inclined to vote on Theory if it has a tangible impact on the plan. (For example, if you're running a specificity argument, don't just talk about how it's unfair in the debate, but how lack of specificity may hurt policy implementation and/or solvency).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. The Aff needs to defend all stock issues (ESPECIALLY SOLVENCY) to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time. I believe the neg has the right to read new case cards in the 2NC or 1NR, though I would prefer them to either be extensions of the 1NC or answers to new cards by the 2AC.I will discount any new DA, K, CP, and/or T brought up in the 2NC or 1NR; if you didn't mention it in the 1NC it isn't in the debate.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA.

CP: Solid off-case position, I'm ok with PICs but can be convinced they're not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The perm isn't necessarily dropped if the CP is dropped.

T:

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T. Please don't use T as a time-suck and ensure you have all the components including: definitions, violations, standards, and voters.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of generics, I'll probably need an explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs. I don't really care for T or policy/state good args unless mishandled, Method v Method is the Negs best bet to win. I'm not a fan of rage politics, especially if anything is directed towards the opponents as opposed to the system/institution.

However everything can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static. You have the power to convince me and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Experienced debater.

I abhor spreading and will weigh a few well articulated arguments over a dozen half baked ones.

T is good if clear but it's obvious when it's a time suck.

Love K debates.

No hate speech.