Girl just debate lol

I was pressured into making a real paradigm so here we go

Paradigm updated for the Washburn Rural tournament
Put me on the chain please: lacyallen@ku.edu

Did Open/KDC style for all 4 years

Neg needs to have offense to win against the aff (the neg needs to prove that the aff is bad, not necessarily that the aff is not good). This means I won't vote neg on presumption.

Please do impact calculus and evidence comparison

Please put topicality first if reading or responding to it

You can run all types of arguments for me, kritikal and policy arguments are fine

I am okay with decently fast speed but probably don't spread, make sure you enunciate

If neither team gives framework I will default to util, but I encourage you to read your own framework

Generally I am truth > tech, but if you don't respond to other team's framework I will use their framework

Please be conscientious of the fact that I'm basically a socialist an advocate for a centrally planned economy

I have basically no topic education this year so you will have to do a lot of explaining

Debate jargon is fine but don't use it as a crutch because you don't know how to build arguments

Only use topic-specific acronyms/abbreviations if you explain them

I will tank speaker points if you are mean

You can use your phone as a timer

Head coach with 28 years experience. Entirely a policymaker who just wants what is *realistically* best for our nation and world. Please treat me as a member of congress who is evaluating a policy proposal for our nation and its international impacts. Persusasive and oratory goes a long way with me, especially in rebuttals.

I do not do well with speeding and spreading. My brain simply cannot process that fast, even if I understand all the words. Please know that I cannot vote on arguments I cannot understand or didn't process, so slow it down on the stuff that you need to make sure I hear. You can go fast if I'm the odd duck in the room, but don't forget to throw me some crumbs along the way.

All arguments are fair game, but you must first convince me that they ought to weigh heavily on my decision. I'm willing to vote on some very unorthodox arguments but not until you educate me on why I ought to set aside all other arguments.

Hi everyone! I'm currently an assistant coach at McPherson High School, and I am the head of debate at McPherson Middle School. I also debated in high school for four years (also at McPherson High). Here are some specific things I look for in a debate:

Quality over Quantity - Being able to spread at the speed of light and read five thousand cards is great, but it doesn't do anything for me in debate. I want you to tell me why your arguments are strong, and why I as the judge should vote for them. I'd prefer a speech with less evidence and more analysis over a speech that has so many cards it's impossible to keep up. If you are reading just to confuse the other team, you're probably confusing your judge too.

Mastery of Material - I want to see that you understand what you are reading to me. If you are on the affirmative side, you should know the answer to every CX question or argument thrown at you—or at least be able to figure it out. This is your case! If you’re running it, you should understand the plan. You’d never argue for something in the real world unless you understood what you were advocating for…it should be the same in debate.

CP/Ks - I’m fine with counterplans, not so much with Ks. I don’t mind listening to one, but you need to understand it, and it needs to have a strong link to the affirmative case.

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!

I am a flow judge with 4 years experience in high school policy debate and one year experience as a coach.

I’ll ultimately vote on argumentation, but I have no preference on what you decide to run.

I am comfortable with fast delivery, but I appreciate teams that differentiate their tag line delivery from the rest of the card.

Obviously, minimum expectations are that teams comport themselves professionally, treat one another with respect, and give the round their all.

Email:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency. There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

My email: allie.cloyd.05@gmail.com. (speechdrop is fine, or add me to the email chain)

KSU '28 studying Environmental Science, four years of high school debate and forensics experience

- Be respectful, don't lie, share evidence, time yourself, and ask me if you have questions

- I will be flowing and expect you to respond to as many of the other teams arguments as you can.

- If you want to spread/talk faster, I can keep up with you as long as I have your evidence.

- It will irk me if you start making claims that the other team didn't respond to things that they actually did, that's just showing me that you didn't flow effectively.

- Please try to run a cohesive negative strategy, if you have major contradictions and they are pointed out by the other team, it will count against you. I hate "Neg gets multiple worlds" theory.

- *I am much likelier to vote on realistic impacts instead of unrealistic existential ones. You can run your "nuke war with China" impact if you wish, but I will probably roll my eyes and it's going to take a lot more work to convince me that it's timely and/or probable.*

- If you want to earn better speaker points: signpost, roadmap, give plenty of analytics, compare and pick apart the other team's evidence, ask good CX questions, be respectful, do effective impact calc, extend arguments, show me that you understand your evidence

On Case:

Please please please run on case as the neg. Picking apart the effectiveness and impacts of the AFF will have a much higher chance of swaying my ballot than some shitty off-case argument. Stock issues = <3

DA/CPs:

I am a fan of DAs and CPs, as long as you can explain your link story and why your impacts are more important. I also expect you to be able to explain why your counterplan solves better or is more important.

Ks:

I'm much more a policymaker judge than a K judge, I will listen to your K but you're going to do quite a bit of analytical explanation to convince me that it will solve/get me to vote on it. I am also probably not familiar with your lit base.

T:

If you run T well and give in-depth explanations of your voters/standards and why they are important, I don't mind it. If you run it poorly I'll just be annoyed.

I am an assistant Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School, where I have worked as the school librarian and a teacher. I am in my 2nd year as an assistant coach but have been judging for several years at tournaments in Shawnee Mission and surrounding districts.As a judge, I have the most experience judging Policy Debate and Forensics speech and drama events. I prefer moderate speed, unless you are unclear. I do realize that with time constraints you may need to speak faster at times. That’s fine as long as it’s in shorter bursts and doesn’t go on too long. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

Three year debater, current college student.

Whatever you think will win you the round, run it as long as you can defend it well. Anything left unanswered or dropped will be seen as true in the round.

If you think that running a k is the best option then go for it, but it needs to be explained well.

Hello there! I have the privilege of serving as your judge. I hope you'll find the information below useful.

Experience: I debated for four years in high school and currently serve as the assistant debate coach for Olathe West.

What I look for in the round: Since every debate round is so different in terms of argumentative focus, I appreciate it when teams specifically tell me what I should be voting for/on. For me, the best rebuttals, regardless of the level of debate, are the ones that include specific appeals to the judge to vote a certain way.

Speed preference: I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear. I need to be able to get taglines, authors, and dates down on my flow.

Topicality: If you feel there's a pretty serious violation that is preventing you from creating adequate clash, run it.

DAs: With solid analysis, disadvantages are great.

CPs: If it's consistent with the negative strategy, go for it.

Kritiks/theory: If you run a Kritik, you better know what you are talking about. Please don't run one if you are simply just trying to throw off the other team. Moreover, if you choose to make a critical argument, please make it worth everyone's time. I tend to find debates that are dominated by abstraction and epistemology unsatisfying, especially when I get the feeling that there's little substance behind the convoluted language. That said, I can appreciate a Kritik if it highlights a flawed assumption that is specific to the language and logic of the Aff case. Specific links will go a long way with me.

Decorum: Be kind and respectful to your opponents and judges. The people that are involved in this activity do it because they enjoy it. Please don't kill that enjoyment by being rude or unkind during a round.

Misc: Debate to your strengths. The best rounds involve great clash and top-tier strategy. If you need to ignore parts of my paradigm in order to make that happen, please, be my guest.

Lastly, clarity is huge to me. Explain your evidence; explain what your argument is; explain what arguments you are countering; and explain what I, as the judge, should consider when formulating my decision.

Email: anna.halstead04@gmail.com

Background: I’m a freshman on the speech team at K-State. I debated at Washburn Rural mostly open, some varsity. Debate-wise I was more into LD than policy.

Disclaimers:

• I have not done a ton of research on this topic

• I can keep up with spreading but only if you’re good at it. I will clear you if I can’t understand you

• If analytics aren’t in the doc you need to go slow, otherwise there is no shot they end up on my flow

• Ks are fine

• Tech>truth

• I am cool with some prompting but if you are essentially a living breathing teleprompter for your partner I don't think it looks great. Also probably just not necessary in open

Likes: signposting, impact calc, non-generic DAs, ev comparison

Dislikes: bad spreading, having to resort to judge intervention, lying (I will know)

You will earn speaks if you: wait until your speech is uploaded to end prep, give an accurate roadmap, and/or say things that are actually funny

You will lose speaks if you: clip, lie, and/or are mean

If something isn’t on here I probably don’t feel strongly about it. However, if you have any questions email me or ask me before the round.

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.

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.

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

I debated for 4 years at Garden City High School. I don’t mind fast talkers and can follow along on the flow please let me know when you’re changing arguments. I hate spreading, if you spread you won’t lose the round but you will always get lowest speaker points.

Im not super familiar with this years topic to please explain your arguments :)

I will listen to any to any argument (as long as it doesn’t contain racism, homophobia, sexism etc that’s an automatic loss) I am okay with Kritiks as I ran them a lot in high school I’m also down for a K- Aff ( I ran one last year) these arguments must connect and make sense explain why it’s important. I loved Topicality as long as you prove it’s harmful and it connects I’ll vote for it. Case and disads are always good arguments make them strong and make them make sense.

Aff make sure to extend arguments and really hit on the impacts and why it’s important for me to vote for you.

I would like a copy of the documents

Here’s my email for an email chain- kileykilgore24@gmail.com

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in the round or email me after the debate.

Good luck everyone :)

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

The Zen Buddhist gives the hot dog cart vendor $5 for a $3 hot dog. He asks the vendor, "Where's my change?"

The vendor says, "True change comes from within. Now go be the change you want to see in the world."

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore, I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

SPREADING IS STUPID.

I prefer actual conversational debate. Please use speechdrop.

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

I debated in the 1980s. While I maintained the "stock issues" paradigm for a decade or so after that, I have become more progressive. Twenty-four years of coaching have demanded it.

My coaching resume:

4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)

10 years Shawnee Mission North

12 years Shawnee Mission West

1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit

What I do not like:

DISRESPECT OF ANY KIND . . . check your sarcastic tone, your eye rolls, and your bad attitude at the door. Be a good person.

provocative language (especially slurs; I know people use them in real life, but I do not need to hear them in a debate round to be "woke")

super fast spreading (I need slower tags, and I need you to slow down if I clear you)

theory debate

extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple

What I like:

topic-centered debate

real-world application

K debates where things are explained to me in a way to make me feel morally obligated to decide correctly

strong 2NR and 2AR . . .my favorite speeches!

people who are kind but assertive

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

yoo welcome to my paradigm

I did Policy all of highschool and some congress, debated at local, state, and national.

BASICS

• If you are disrespectful or discriminatory toward anyone you automatically lose my respect and the round
• The goal is to have fun, be competitive and learn something
• If you are an experienced team against a team who does not have a lot of experience i would prefer if you do not spread or be arrogant. Some people within debate do not have the access to camps or solid resources to quickly become as advanced.
• yes, i do want the evidence

CPs

• Im chill w CPs but if you dont know how to run one maybe stick to the DAs and case args
• State CPs and ones alike are honestly a time waster and something to kick at the end but ive seen some pretty good twists on it so dont be scared to run it

THEORY

• i love it i find it so fascinating, however i didn't have too much experience with it till the end of my high-school career, as long as you do a good summarization at the end there shouldn't be a problem with it
• Theres not any theory that i do not like that i have come across yet

I did debate all through high school and college, and have coached it as well. So I can keep up with most arguments and ideas.

Things I like in a debate are clash, good theory, stock issues, and impact calc. The more straightforward the better. The more squirrely your argument the less likely I am to vote for it.

PLEASE DO ROADMAPS

I like good Topicality arguments, and can't stand ones that are just there for time sucks or because you have nothing better to run. Please don't do this.

I really don't care for K's. If you run a good one, and it explain it very well, I'm good with it.

Some speed is fine, but if you can't say the whole word, you're going too fast.

Be polite. There is a line between being assertive and a jerk. Know that line, because I don't like voting for jerks, even if they were the better debater.

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.

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.

hello! my name is hannah-- pronouns she/her/hers

add me to email chains! hannah.joelle.mott@gmail.com

I did policy debate & forensics (info, oration, prose, IX, DX, impromtu) for three years at usd 345! octo finalist & 9th speaker at 2022 ndt in world schools! I now debate at KU (rock chalk!)

Overview: This is my first year as an Assistant Debate Coach for Garden City High School. During the school day I teach US government, and I have a degree in Broadcast journalism so I have a significant background with this year’s topic. I took several law and debate classes in college but my schedule never allowed me to compete. I will be flowing the round, I wont tolerate bullying or bigotry.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are allowed to express their arguments,but if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate, but I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps.

Judge’s Favor:

Something I really like to see is sportsmanship. Introducing yourself to your opponents, Asking them questions at the beginning of the round to make sure that you are sharing information in a way that works for everyone, anything that shows me you are not trying to squeeze out every advantage you can get is a bonus in my book.

DO NOT’s:

Spreading-If I have to focus on listening so I can understand the words that are coming out of your mouth it It is hard for me to look at your side favorably.

Talking over Cross Examination: I have seen too many debaters talk over their opponent during cross examination and not letting the other ask questions or respond to the questions being asked.

Warnings:

These are things that you can do but if you get me off the topic you cannot guarantee I will reach the same conclusion you do based off of your evidence:

K arguments are dangerous.- I love a good K argument but i have seen a lot of them go off the rails and backfire.

Topicality: If you do attack topicality do it well.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

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

***I will be returning to paper flows for this tournament. Pleaseslow down, especially on tags and analytics and especially with paragraph-long tags. Treat me as a fast f/lay judge or slowest flow judge. Aff, you'll probably want to read your lay aff. Neg, you'll probably want to limit off-case positions.***

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

Overall, I tend to assess the round as a test of policy. In other words, my default position is that stock issues matter (unless you convince me they shouldn't). Clash = good; analysis = good; impact calculus = critical. See immediately below for a summary of my other default convictions, reduced to sometimes false binaries, followed by additional detail.

Speed |------X---| Slow/conversational

Argument quantity |-------X--| Argument quality

Tech |---X------| Truth

Kritik |------X--| Policy

Condo |----X-----| Unconditionality

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

Counterplans. I debated in an era in which counterplans were rare. Over the years, I've grown more comfortable adjudicating these arguments, but I'm not a fan a slew of blippy 1 card "counterplans" or Aff reciting a bunch of blurby perms in 2AC. If you just read a string of "Perm Do Both. Perm Do the CP then P." etc., I'm not likely to give a lot of weight to the perm attempt. I also value a real debate on net-benefit (or mutual exclusivity--remember that?); Neg must explain this to me in detail.

Kritik. My favorite rounds to judge don't include any K position; I prefer clash on policy issues over attacks at the level of worldview or rhetoric, but its your round, and I understand that some teams want to debate the K. So I'll hear you out (provided you really explain the lit), but I need to hear a clear and compelling Alt. and K advocates must thoroughly explain, and win on, role-of-the-judge/rule-of-the-ballot. I'm also closest to a truth-over-tech judge in the K space, meaning plausibility matters most to me when evaluating these arguments. I disfavor K Affs; my default view is it is the affirmative's job to represent the resolution. If that's what you want to read, I'll do my best to evaluate it, but if you have a back-up policy aff, now would be the time to read it.

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

This is my second year as a coach and third or fourth year judging rounds. While I understand the technical side of debate, I still prioritize solid arguments. I'm fine with speed, but again prioritize the quality of the argument rather than its quantity.

I was a head coach for 9 years in Kansas and Missouri and an assistant coach for 5 years with debaters placing at state and qualifying to Nationals in Policy Debate, Domestic Extemp, and Student Congress. I also was a theatre director and have had state placing IE performances. I have a Master’s degree in Speech Communications and Persuasion and in Gifted Education, so I expect good quality effective communication with quality source materials and well constructed arguments. I prefer closed cross ex in all forms of debate.

In Policy Debate, I’m a combination of stock issues and policy maker. Topicality is a voter if properly supported. I do not vote for generic disadvantages unless there are specific and unique links to the case. I do not like or vote on K’s. The majority of the time I feel that they are just a time suck and that most debaters don’t truly understand the philosophies behind them. I prefer case and plan specific arguments that are fully researched.

In LD, I prefer quality arguments over quantity. I am willing to accept your lens to view the arguments and expect you to have a good working knowledge of the philosophy behind it. I want to hear thoughtful arguments that are not canned. I don't mind about a 6 on a scale of 10 speed wise. If I can't understand you to flow an argument then it is considered dropped.

In Congress, I am looking for well researched and well presented arguments. I want to see that you have a working knowledge of the legislative process and can use your persuasive arguments to help gain support from your peers.

In PFD and other forms of debate, I am looking for quality communication that does not sound annoying or knitpicky. I do not want to listen to you bicker with your opponent. I want to see you beat them with solid logic, evidence, and quality speaking skills.

Public Speaking Events- I want to see well organized and well researched speeches. I am looking for articulate speakers, who are able to carry the tone and clarity needed to develop better understanding in others. Breathe, don't speed through what you have to tell me. Be sure to cite sources. And I always enjoy a creative approach or a unique viewpoint.

Acting Events- I'm looking for performances that are well rehearsed without feeling contrived or fake. I want to watch a performance and see genuine emotion from the actors. Characters should be clear and easily distinguishable with voice and body. I like to see smooth transitions and/or page turns that flow easily and are easy to follow. In terms of the piece I want to see something that moves me whether to laughter or tears.

If you have questions about my judging preferences do not hesitate to ask.

Assistant Coach - Emporia High School

4 years policy debate in HS, 5+ years judging experience

-I like stock issues

-I don't like speed being used as a weapon

-I don't like nonsense topicality arguments, but I am for them if they make sense.

-I like when debaters analyze and explain the cards

-I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, and making logical arguments

-I am all for new evidence in rebuttals that support arguments that were made in both constructives

-I am for new arguments in 2NC

Definitely ask if you have a question about something specific!

Policy Paradigm -

TLDR: please put me on the email chain, give good clash and good impact calc. (and see bottom bolded section)

I did 4 years policy and 2 years of pfd in central Kansas 2014-2018. Went to nats in OO and PFD.

I’m pretty open to listening to most arguments, but haven’t heard a lot of the tech-y stuff before. I would love to learn more about the tech side of debate. Run your cool arguments in round, just explain them to me.

I will be flowing. I would prefer moderate speed (nothing super super fast please), give me pen time. Please extend your arguments. If you have an email chain I would love to be on it to follow along.allysonregehr@gmail.com

I generally have not done much, if any, prior topic research aside from listening to rounds. Explain your arguments and why they are important. Good debate stems from you being able to hold your ground and explain/examine. (Also please tell me what any acronyms used stand for)

Most of all debate is meant to be educational. If I feel like you are taking away from the educational factor of debate I will vote you down. There is no place to be rude, belittle, or demeaning in any way to your opponents, your judges, your teammates, etc in this round today.

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.

[DEBATE PARADIGM](Scroll for Forensics/Speech)

Welcome to my Paradigm! My name is Sydney Rivera and I'm so excited to be judging for y'all.

I'm gonna start with 3 things-

1. Congrats! You're doing better than most debaters by actually checking my paradigm, and
2. I'm gonna try to give you the best judging/ballot experience I can :)
3. My email if you're doing email chain is serivera0616@gmail.com . I prefer SpeechDrop, though.

Now, onto the actual debate stuff.

I debated for 2 years at Manhattan High School. My novice and senior years ended in relatively successful trips to state :) I went to the Jayhawk Debate Institute in 2023 so I'm pretty familiar with debate lingo and tech stuff. I'm definitely a policymaker and stuff that skirts the resolution isn't my favorite, but if you run it well enough, I will vote on it. I'm not a big fan of the DCI style (i.e., cramming everything into 3000 words per minute and barely leaving time for real argumentation), so don't give me like 45 off case positions unless you're literally a god or something.

Another thing- I'm a little rusty! I debated my soul away in high school but it's been a while since I've been involved in the activity. Keep that in mind whenever you want to pull a rhetorical kick-flip on me. It may be cool and take skill, but if I don't know what you did or how you did it, it's not gonna mean much to me.

I know it seems like I'm some sort of "anti-new-debate", "random-ol'-guy" type judge, but I swear I'm not. I'm excited to be judging you and I can't wait to see what debates the IP resolution gets us! Scroll for more itemized descriptions.

Let's go item by item-

DAs- No problem! I love them. My baby is a good DA. (Key word, good).

T- Yes (If run well and clearly: remember standards and voters!) for Open and above, NO for early novices. To my novices: You were literally given the case. It's topical.

Ks- Not a HUGE fan, but if you explain it well enough, then I would be able to vote on it :) You're really going to need to hold my hand through it. I don't want to have to draw my own conclusions about what your case DOES and what the Alt means for the universe. Prove it to me!

CPs- You have to very clearly prove how the CP is superior and how it doesn't link to any of your DAs or T. I think CPs have a tendency to be abusive, so don't use it as an "easy win" strategy.

Impact types- I'm fine with most impacts! Nuke war, climate, death, etc.- as long as you put it out in the round and support it, I'll roll with it! For unconventional/structural violence impacts, make sure to run some good framing.

Impact turns- I'm fine with a good impact turn! That's the thing, though- it has to be good. Prove why this possibly detrimental thing is actually something good. The one thing I really hate is impact turns like "death good" or "extinction good". No they aren't. Personally, I like the fact that you and I are alive and reading this right now.

Link Turns- I love link turns! They're a very reliable on-case argument, not much to say otherwise.

Impact calc- Magnitude, timeframe, probability. Show me EXACTLY why you deserve to win. Tell me how to vote.

Speed- I can keep up with SOME amount of speed, but don't sacrifice clarity and argumentative ability for speed. Focus on good arguments instead.

Summarizing- I do have a tendency to enjoy some "storytelling", or summarizing and explaining your case. It helps you come across as more put together and knowledgable if you can summarize the case in your own words. Try to do this, if you can!

Silliness- Some silliness can be fun. I ran a case where all my overviews were food themed. I didn't do well, but it was a good time! Debate should be strategic AND fun. The only thing I ask is that you keep a basic level of decorum. Even if you know your opponents, even if you know ME, even if it's a relaxed environment, you're still debating and should treat it like such.

Flowing- I'm gonna be flowing and you should be too. I love SpeechDrop but I'm not as big on email chain.

CX- Either open or closed. If you're doing open, then you HAVE to carry your own weight. Don't rely on your partner for ALL answers or questions, just some clarification when needed.

Some debate pet peeves of mine-

-Ultra-aggressive CX. Don't be a jerk. Cutting people off and being a meanie is just unpleasant for everyone. Calm your ego. Drink water. Touch grass. This is a game, my dude.

-Lying in the 2AR. Manipulating facts? Sure. LYING? No. What is wrong with you. If I can follow your string of logic through all of your speeches prior, you're good. Don't pull something out of a hat that has zero substantiation.

-BEING HATEFUL/RUDE- Automatic loss. I don't care how good your arguments are. If you don't have the capacity to be a decent human for 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours, do some self evaluation. Don't whisper about your opponents and don't yell at your partner. Be a good person, please. I shouldn't have to ask this but people can suck sometimes.

-"Death good" and other associated turns. No. Just no. I'll buy a lot of things, but I don't want anyone spewing weird rhetoric.

-Fearmongering- Now, this one is a little tricky. I've seen some people run some pretty problematic DAs and things that amount to "[Insert foreign country] is evil and trying to kill us all!". While sometimes, I will buy these arguments, I think the rhetoric needs to be watched carefully to avoid overgeneralization of people and cultures.

-Bashing the other team- We've all been there. You come across a team that you're surprised managed to get the "okay" to go to competition. The win is in your hands before the 1AC is over. You have two choices- compete at a slightly lower level so everyone has a chance to learn, or absolutely beat the team to a pulp with 23 off case positions and 49 on case cards. Please choose the former. Even if the round isn't super competitive, it's still a chance to learn. Remember that your opponents are people that deserve kindness and respect.

TO SUMMARIZE- Between 2018 and 2024, NSDA membership decreased by over 13,000. I love this activity and I want the people IN THIS ACTIVITY to support the others like them. We can do this by making competiton fair, balanced, and kind. Y'all are cool people in the coolest activity high school has to offer. Keep cultivating the environment you want to compete in!

I'm basically looking for a round with good clash, good manners, and good speaking! In the words of my coach, "Speak pretty and don't suck!"

[Secret reward]- If you read this far, congratulations! I have an opportunity for you to win some extra favor in my eyes. If you quote a song/lyric by the British band The 1975 in any speech or CX, I'll give you an extra speaker point on top of what I'd score you without that. You don't need to "properly cite" the quotation. I'll catch most references.

[SPEECH/FORENSICS PARADIGM]

Here's where I'd put this paradigm, if I had one written. I'll have it up by spring :)

Anyways, you're literally a debater. Why do you care right now?

I do not like spreading, unless you are articulate and easy to understand. Enunciate and clarify taglines and authors.

I do not like T or K as a general idea, but if you can give specific links and thoroughly explain how the case is a violation, try it.

I like good argument structure and organization. Speeches should be easy to flow and keep track of.

I like when you answer the arguments in the order it was presented originally-- signpost and roadmap.

I do not like racial/gender theory-- it doesn't matter if you can link it to the case, I think it fundamentally takes away from debate.

I really like good sportsmanship-- duh.

I do not like new arguments being made in the 2NC/2AC. If you are going to be making arguments they need to be brought up in your first constructive.

Signpost, Signpost, SIGNPOST!

This is my first year as an assistant debate coach and I have only judged a handful of times. I have no background in debate but I do have a degree in history which often focuses on research and argumentative writing. I understand how to follow a debate round but advanced debate jargon goes over my head. I prefer that debaters speak at a moderate rate rather than as fast as they possibly can. Coming from a background in history I put a lot of emphasis on evidence and sources. Having an array of credible sources from different authors is vital to support one's claims in a debate. Making a claim and backing it up with “It’s just a google search away” is a sure way to lose some points if not lose the round.

Hello, my name is Jonathan Stears, but you should still probably call me "judge" during the round.

I judged for two years at Olathe South, I have also been a judge before multiple times

I know very little about the debate topic, please make sure to explain concepts when necessary, also make sure that links are clear to me. Too many times I've been left skeptical on whether two arguments actually link to one another, and I'm left wondering whether my skepticism is legitimate or it was just because it was not explained well enough to me.

I will have notes for each speech on the back of the ballot.

I am fine with most arguments whether it be DAs, CPs, Ks, T, or anything else, but you should still explain everything to me regardless. This includes why you should win the round, why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's, why I should believe your grouping/cross-applying, and especially where you are applying arguments on the flow.

I will be flowing so I would like to be a part of the speechdrop or email chain, but you should still be signposting, moving down the flow, applying arguments, explaining arguments, and especially telling me why I should prefer your arguments/evidence. If you can do all of those things better than your opponent there is a good chance that you will win.

I will also be timing speeches but this isn't to be strict, this is more so that I know how much time you've spent on arguments so I can give you feedback on that when necessary.

I will be thinking about the debate round throughout however I will not bring these thoughts into the round if they aren't said in the round. Similarly, if you drop arguments I will immediately flow them towards your opponent, and the same goes vice versa, if you do not bring up an argument that you are winning I will not consider on the ballot.

I promise I am paying attention to the round and what's going on, also don't assume that I don't like your speech, my facial expression ≠ my actual thoughts.

I don't like disclosure theory, let's have a round where both teams can shine.

My email (for email chains): stearsjonathan@gmail.com

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

If you plan on using an E-mail chain please include the following email: jack.turec@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Jonathan Turec and I use They/Them pronouns. I am a 3rd-year debater at Olathe Northwest High School. I have competed in the Novice, JV, and Open divisions. I have seen most policy arguments and can follow most major CPs, K's, and DAs but you have to make sure they make sense in the scope of the debate.

Novice: The things I want to see in a novice debate are teams who are invested in and understand the debate and don't just mindlessly read off your documents. I need to be able to understand what you are saying in your speeches so please speak up and annunciate. I do factor in your behavior in round as well as the arguments you present. If you act rudely towards your opponent or your partner you will be much more likely to lose that round, so please be cordial. Furthermore, any racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic arguments or behavior presented will result in the debater getting the bottom speaker position and very likely result in that team losing the round.

Plan: You need to have clear and easy-to-understand plantexts to let me follow the debate and allow a fair debate for the Neg. I would prefer not to have an entire debate just on the wording of the plan as that will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. If you fail to read your plan in the 1AC I have nothing to judge the Aff case off of and will award the round to the Neg.

CX: During cross-examination, I want both the questioner and recipient to face me to allow me to hear and understand both sides of CX better, you should remain polite and cordial in your CX as well as not asking hateful or derogatory questions if it is your time for questioning. While I am fine with open CX I would prefer that you allow those who are meant to be speaking to have the majority of time in the CX.

Topicality: While I enjoy T arguments, you need to provide good reasoning for your T and make sure it makes sense. If you decide to run topicality on a case that is very clearly topical the affirmative team will have the upper hand in the debate. Overall I like T debate but make sure your T isn't too out there.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan you need to show both how the affirmative team is wrong in enacting their plan and how your plan solves the affirmative team's impacts/advantages better. I usually enjoy counter-plan debates and will take the CP into heavy consideration when deciding the round. When it comes to perms you need to explain to me why you are perming and how perming solves the CP's issues. It would help if you also showed how perming is possible with both the Aff Plan and Neg CP.

K: It is essential that if you decide to run a K you understand the arguments and reasoning in the kritik, if on the Neg you run a Cap K or some other K and don't understand the basic reasoning and arguments of it then the Aff will get the upper hand in the round. Furthermore, you need to explicitly show how your K links to the Aff case, if you don't then it won't be considered in my RFD.

Overall the debate round will hopefully go smoothly. There should be no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try to give as much feedback as possible on my ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round so I can explain parts in depth for you.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

***scroll down for my preferred args, the top is mostly round conduct and novice stuff***

Former Manhattan High School Debater, MHS' 24 (Kansas)

Assistant/Novice Coach for Humboldt High (Minnesota)

University of Minnesota' 28 (not debating)

Double majoring political science and statistics, pre-law

sydney.k.vahl@gmail.com

Add me to the speechdrop or email chain

My paradigm is mainly just me ranting about all the things that have annoyed me in debate, don't take it too seriously :) I update this after every tournament I've competed at/judged at

I'm a policy debater, but I have a basic understanding of LD, PFD, and congress.

I'm not from Minnesota. If I go against certain norms of the state it could have been an accident, but more likely I made a conscious decision to reject an unproductive debate standard in favor of the far superior Kansas style.

MY NAME IS NOT SYDNEY VAIL!!! Vahl as in rhyming with doll, hall, wall, and ball. Not Vail like in pail. If you say my name within my earshot and you call me Sydney Vail I will be sad :(

__________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY GENERAL:

Don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be a jerk. Automatic loss if you are, don't care how good your argument is. I didn't know how important this was to me until I forfeited a round crying and the judge didn't do anything. If you make your opponents cry and are being consistently a mean and bad person there is no way you will get my vote. I'll give a warning in novice for behavior if it gets bad. For JV, Open, and Varsity I'll stop the round and turn my ballot in as it is no warning, y'all know better than that and if you don't then you don't deserve my vote. Debate is supposed to be a fun and silly little activity, don't ruin it.

***Note: I think there is a stark difference between being an assertive debater and a mean one. The boundary has become muddied over the years and has come to especially hurt fem presenting debaters. While I do expect teams to remain civil, y'all are also competing against each other and the institution of debate rewards confident dynamic competition. Yes, be assertive! Yes, be passionate! But issues arise when we characterize and brush off those who are assertive, passionate, and competitive as simply mean spirted individuals. The 90 or so minutes you spend with your competitors in round is not indicative of their entire personalities. As a former debater, I know it is easy to get lost in split second characterizations because of a particularly heated round. I've been guilty of it myself. Its ok to be frustrated, but recognize your opponents are probably equally frustrated in their own right. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Give your competitors, as well as yourself, grace to grow and improve. At the end of the day, its just a silly little made up debate round.

Speaks: I don't like how speaks are done in Minnesota and I've yet to adapt to the norms so if I accidentally rank you too low that's my bad. In general, speaks aren't really a big thing for me, I think they're just performative. My speaks were always lower in high school because I had to carry the technical debate so I understand its a balancing act.

I debated in Kansas for 3 years in high school, aka in a highly competitive circuit. I know the rules of debate, I will know when you misrepresent them.

Policy maker

MAJOR NOTE: If I'm making a face at you it's probably because I don't like what you're saying, so don't keep saying it and move on lol. Novices this means you.

Accommodations: If an accommodation within reason is asked for you will make that accommodation. If it "compromises the round" for you or "makes you less competitive" then you aren't a good debater point blank. Not listening to accommodations will lose you the round right away.

Flow: My flow is a big factor in my decision. Tech over truth but not really but also kind of but mostly not probably. I will (most likely) be flowing the round. Don't send me a masterfile, I only want the cards you are reading in round. If I don't know what you read, I won't flow it and you will lose on the flow. DO NOT LIE ON FLOW!!!

Paper debate: I debated in a completely digital circuit and the only people who used paper did it for a competitive advantage so I am a big paper debate hater. I think evidence should be available to everyone in the round for accessibility's sake. If you don't give me your files and I miss a tagline or argument I'm not going to fix it later, that's on you :)

CX: I prefer closed cross examination, but its really up to you. That being said, if your partner does all the work it will affect my final ballot. Don't waste CX, use it to further your argument. Don't be rude or weirdly aggressive in CX, will not make me want to vote for you. DON'T WASTE CX!!!

Speed: Being a fast talker myself, I know how difficult speed regulation can be. If you let me know beforehand and give me a signal to slow you down there should be no problems with your speed.

Spreading: I think speed and spreading are different things. If you speak faster but I can still hear actual words coming out of your mouth you're all good. Spreading so fast that your words are unintelligible is not acceptable. If I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth then I'm not flowing it. I can only write/type so fast, if I miss something I'm not going back to fix it later.

I don't really care what you call me in round, judge is what I prefer but it's also not that serious. Don't call me Sydney though, that's weird and it always gave me the ick when I debated

If I give you an RFD and you try to argue with me over my decision I will drop your speaker points <3

__________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY RESOLUTION SPECIFIC: 2024-25 TOPIC:

China Tech DA: I look racially ambiguous at best and my name on tab is Sydney Vahl, but I am Chinese. My biggest problem when people run this DA is the rhetoric they use surrounding it. I am in no way trying to justify China's international or domestic politics, but I think its more than fair to say the issue surrounding China is more nuanced than "China is bad and brainwashing their citizens". Although not intentional, its the use of unsubstantiated rhetoric like this that has lead to such massive xenophobia and anti-Asian hate. Chinese citizens are not a monolith, not everyone agrees with everything the government says and does just like in the US. Also, not every Chinese citizen is sitting around dreaming about a US style democratic system lol. Just because Instagram is banned doesn't mean the entire population lives in total peril dreaming for the US to come swoop in and save them.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

MIDDLE SCHOOL/MINNESOTA NOVICE POLICY:

I've judged a lot of novice debate in my home state of Kansas, but it's been a while since I've debated, so go easy on me with speed and the amount of arguments you run.

Honestly, just have fun with it and PLEASE be flowing. I’ve judged a lot of bad novice debate but as long as you aren’t dropping and picking up arguments left and right you’ll be fine in front of me.

I’m a policymaker and will vote for whoever does the least harm and most benefits.

DAs are my favorite, I’ll accept topicality within reason, I’m ok with Ks within reason again, and I hate CPs.

Boo K Affs, tomato tomato tomato, don't run these in front of me

I LOVE structural violence impacts/real world tangible impacts. I have a hard time buying nuke war and total extinction.

Fast reading is ok, spreading and monotone is NOT! Quality > Quantity in your args.

Just be nice to each other and DO NOT WASTE SPEECH TIME! Speak for the whole time! Every speech!

You can read the rest of my paradigm is you want, but this is essentially what I’ll be evaluating the round on :) Good luck!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

HIGH SCHOOL:

On-Case: Best thing a neg team can do is win on-case. I don't care how good or bad your off-case is as long as you really crush the aff's on-case.

Off-Case: Tell me why I should prefer your impacts. You should be able to defend your case while combating the opposing side.

K: I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain them well and specify your link. Love a good k every now and then. I AM NOT A GOOD K JUDGE THOUGH! Great with feminist lit and AAPI lit, but that is it.

K Affs: NO! I want you to be debating the actual resolution, it's there for a reason. I think the advocacy and theory behind a lot of K Affs is really cool, but I think there are ways to incorporate the ideas and arguments of a K Aff into a topical affirmative for the resolution. As long as the neg can carry T through the entire debate they will win.

DA: Great tool to use if you can clarify and justify their importance.

T: I'm a reformed T hater. While I don't like T being used as a time suck or being used against obviously topical cases, I LOVE LOVE LOVE a T double bind. Not a fan of T with novice caselist. You have a packet with every possible adv and argument, there are no voters. Voters are the biggest thing for me on t. Even if you can prove a violation, if you have no voters then it doesn't matter to me. AKA losing voters = losing the arg

CP: Not the biggest fan of counterplans, but I will consider them. Please make sure to tell me why your plan solves more/better than the AFF. Generally I think CPs are lazy ways to get out of interacting case, if you go with a CP I still want to see flow on case. I hate seeing more than one CP, no multiple worlds nonsense. If you're still holding onto both of them by rebuttals and don't tell me which you're kicking then I will choose what to kick and I guarantee you won't be happy with my choice.

Rebuttals: The most important part of the round to me. Give me a well organized and efficient rebuttal. This is your time you really hammer in the central messages and ideas of your case, don't waste it.

Analytics: Don't tell me a team didn't properly respond to your arguments when they read analytics. You're not going to have a card for everything and that's ok, sometimes you only need a quick analytic (but not all the time, use cards when you can <3).

Condo: BAD! If you've got like 3 off 2 DA and T and drop T by the 2NR then that's fine but I will not sit through more than that. 4+ off only shows that you came in ill prepared to actually debate the resolution. I want quality over quantity.

Aff Kick: I'm not a fan. I think aff kick changes aff advocacy and also incentivizes running half-baked weak advantages just to time skew and kick them later. I understand the need in higher speed rounds, but in general aff kick is a reason to vote neg for me. I think aff kick should be exclusively reserved for when you are badly losing an advantage or scenario. I already have a limited amount of ground I can vote aff on, why are you limiting it even further? All it does is concede negative offence, reduce affirmative potential, leave room for direct judge intervention, and limits your strategic flexibility. It is def a risk that could pay off, but I've never personally seen it executed well.

Things I hate:

• Extinction good

• Bootlickers and butt-kissers

• Name calling/accusations. DO NOT resort to calling your opponents names. Calling someone racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist etc. is serious and not just something to win you the debate round.

• Assuming facts about a person and forming arguments about them in round. It is so funny for me as a white-passing-Asian getting "called out" for running Asian related arguments.

• K Affs (hate hate hate hate hate hate)

• "This is my CX" This is so unnecessary just move on , you don't have to engage. I HATE this

• Calling for abuse when there so clearly wasn't, again, serious not just to win you the round

• Not a politics DA person. I've run and cut enough of them to know how bad the uniqueness arguments can be. If you lose uniqueness then you lose the DA. Unless you can cut a politics DA right before or the day of probably avoid these with me. I love the idea of them but it just end up being a recency debate and I hate that with a passion

• Yes or no questions in cx. If you asked someone a question let them answer it how they want to answer it, don't put words in their mouth. If you do this nonsense (not the word I want to use) I will feel more sympathetic to the team being CXed. Yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no yes or no does nothing for anyone

Things I love:

• More tangible real-world impacts. Structural violence>>>nuke war

• A good trade-off DA

• DOUBLE BINDS <333

• IMPACT CALC

• Framing! ESPECIALLY uncontested framing

Don't waste speech time, I hate when you waste speech time. Don't waste speech time. Stretch out your speeches if needed. More than 30 second speeches, please I'm begging you. DON'T. WASTE. SPEECH. TIME.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

HIGH SCHOOL LD, PFD, CONGRESS:

I don't have personal experience competing in these events, but I understand the basic components and structure.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to reach out afterwards to ask me about my ballot or if you need further clarification.

Mitch Wagenheim

4 years debated in HS, assistant coaching since 2015. Last updated September 2022

Overview:

My basic paradigm is that I will vote on almost anything so long as you win the argument and demonstrate that argument is sufficient to win the round. I used to be more of a policymaker judge but have become less attached to that framing. I firmly believe in tech over truth within the scope of the round. The only exceptions to this are arguments or types of discourse that seek to exclude people from the activity (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) If your arguments fall into the above categories, you will lose my ballot regardless of anything else on the flow. I am wiling to vote on almost anything. What follows are my general views on arguments and I can be convinced otherwise on any of them.

Specifics:

1. For theory arguments, you need to specify a compelling reason to reject the team. Saying “reject the team, not the argument” is not actually an argument.
2. Topicality is often an underdeveloped argument in rounds I’ve seen.
3. If you are running a K aff, it should have something to do with the resolution. It doesn’t need to be topical in the same way a policy aff does, but there should be a clear reason why it’s directly relevant to the topic. If you don’t want to engage the topic for whatever reason, you’ll need some strong framing why.
4. I can generally follow the theory of your K, but make sure to clearly articulate your arguments and don’t just read blocks. Your alt needs to be supported by the literature base and somehow mutually exclusive with the affirmative. ROB/ROJ arguments are extremely helpful.
5. In terms of familiarity with critical arguments/authors I’m pretty conversant in Fem/Fem IR/Security/Foucault/Heidegger as well as the basic Cap/Imperialism/etc. arguments. Topics like Afropessimism/Queer IR or less common authors (Baudrillard for example) I can generally follow, but am less knowledgable about.
6. DAs should have a clear link story and generic disads generally don’t hold much strategic value.
7. Smart analytics are just as valuable as cards.
8. Clarity is substantially more important than speed. If you are unclear, I’ll give you a warning if you’re unclear but it’s up to you to make sure you are communicating. If I miss something because you’re unclear, that argument won’t be considered.

Overall, do what you are comfortable with as best as you can. Don’t let my preferences discourage you from running your strategy.

I am a first-year assistant debate coach. I have judged here and there over the last few years at home tournaments. While I am intelligent and can follow an argument, I struggle when debaters get lost in the weeds of technicality and minutiae. I am more interested in the meat of the argument. If you are rude or condescending, you will also lose my interest. Being the loudest or the fastest speaker also does not win an argument for me. Many times the points brought up in CX are the most compelling. I love witnessing a well-thought out and lively debate.

Hello, I am Ava, and I am very excited to be judging your round!

I debated for 4 years at Salina South high school (KS) doing mostly traditional policy. I also am an assistant coach at Manhattan High School (KS)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Ava or judge, whichever you prefer.

Would love to be on the email chain: ava.m.williamson05@gmail.com

Awards:

4 year state qualifier in debate

Top 10 @state debate in 2023, 2022 and 2021

Won KDC in 2022

2 year state qualifier in forensics

National qualifier in info and extemp

The Short Version:

I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, laugh, and smile during a debate. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 9/10 on a good day. I do prefer tags and author to be read at normal speed and the rest you can spread. I will almost always default tech over truth, meaning I will listen to any argument you present to me, if it comes down to it refer to how I would vote on specifics.

T/Theory-

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead.

I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

One of my favorite debates.

Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best.

For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier.

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I personally didn't run many K's but I am well informed over most lit. The lit bases I know strongly are fem, cap, security, and oreintalism. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.

I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counter advocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

If you have any further questions feel free to ask! :)

Pronouns: She/her

Lansing '22

4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics

Olathe North HS Assistant Coach

KU '25

i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it.i'm not a huge k gal but if it's your thing then just do it well. explain to me what is going on and what the alt looks like and all that good jazz, keep it organized as well. if you're running a k then i'm probably already slightly behind so don't make things messy and lose me completely. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that.if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that, otherwise you are wasting time in the round.