Please add me to the email chain- my email is josephmhiggins1@gmail.com

I've been debating my sophomore through senior years at Olathe Northwest.

I'm a fairly basic policymaker judge that uses offense/defense to weigh impacts.

I debated in a more traditional style but am open to all styles. I can handle speed when reading evidence, but please slow down tags and analytical arguments. If you're spreading analytics I will almost certainly not understand them well.

I've debated against kritiks now and again, but not ran them. I remain as neutraI as possible, but I'm not a huge fan of performative or identity-related kritiks. It's also easy for a negative team to convince me that a kritikal affirmative should be voted down in favor of resolutional debate.

Winning a theory argument usually means that I'll reject the argument, not the team, unless a strong case is made otherwise.

Happy debating!

I'm an advanced debater at ONW. When I do judge, I'm looking for rational, realistic arguments and will vote for the strongest argument. However, to do this, I like to be able to understand what the other team is saying: I don't like spreading because I feel it detracts from an educational debate. I also really enjoy when debaters speak and project to the audience; if I can't hear or understand what you're saying, it's going to be pretty hard for me to vote for you.

My name is Himani Mulbery and I am a second year debater at Pembroke Hill High School. I compete in PFD and INFO. During a round I would like to see debaters using evidence as much as possible. I also think it's important for both partners to contribute during grand crossfire.

Hello, my name is Yash Parsai. I am an advanced debater at Olathe Northwest High School.

I am ok with technical language and speed. However, if the other team is not, YOU SHOULD ACCOMMODATE.

I will flow the entire round and analyze the arguments. If you drop something, I will not weigh it against you unless the other team points it out. This is true for all arguments; I only weigh it if the other team mentions it.

I am a Tech>Truth. This means that you can have the most absurd argument, but if you can justify it with evidence or simply out-debate the other team over that subject, I will assume it to be true.

T and Theory: These are both arguments about the fairness of the debate. If the other team is proven to be unfair, I will not vote for them. I will weigh these the most.

DA: I like DAs, and if you can prove to me that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, I will vote for the NEG (Impact Calc).

CP: I will listen to a CP and weigh it, but for it to be an effective argument, you have to prove to me that it solves better or that you have a net benefit

K: I have run Ks, and I will listen to Ks. The K is an argument that can benefit you or harm you. If you execute it poorly and don't know what you're talking about, it will harm you. But if you do it well, it can be a lethal argument.

FW: Besides what I just listed, I take a tabula rasa role in the debate, so it is your job to tell me what I should vote on.

Overall, have a good debate and have fun. I will not stand for any discrimination or actions or words that make anyone feel uncomfortable.

Last updated March 14, 2025

------

My pronouns are she/her/hers.

Lucia Scott School of Debate '27 (3 years of experience- 1 year local congress, 2 years nat policy)

Please add me to the email chain--- charlotte.cuts.cards@gmail.com. (please don't send docs as pdfs, it won't affect your speaks but it may make me cry, and that would be awkward for both of us)

I actually could not care less what you call me, charlotte, judge, your honor, diva, idc just be respectful. I'll probs up your speaks if its funny

Star sign: Taurus, Chinese zodiac: Ox

Have your cameras on for online debate

If you need a pad/tampon, just ask me, I always carry extra.

If y'all are comfortable, please tell me your pronouns before the round

Almost all of what I've learned about debate comes from Lucia Scott (the goat), so if my paradigm dosent make sense look at theirs.

Be nice and have fun! Debate is about so much more than just winning a single round, and being nice will reflect so much better on you than winning one round will.

This paradigm is word vomit of every thought I've ever had about debate. I'm sorry.

Top level

• my paradigm is not a reflection of how I think you need to debate (except parts were I say don't be rude or commit ethics violations, that is how you should debate), rather its a list of any biases/ideas I have about debate. you can do whatever you want however you want to do it, but everything listed here could and probably will affect my ballot
• IMPACT CALC AND JUDGE INSTRUCTION PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
• Tech > truth, but truth makes it easer to win tech
• Bigotry or hate speech will result in an automatic 24 (or lower) speaks, L, and a message to coach(es). My role above all else is to make sure this space is safe for everyone.
• I'm fine with overviews, but it should be 30 seconds at the very max. There is NEVER any reason your K needs a 2 minute overview.
• Be respectful! You don't look as cool as you think you do being rude to the other team.
• On a similar note, don't be an edge lord. You look like a loser impact turning structural violence, and so will your speaks and probably your ballot.
• Good puns will do a lot for your speaks, bad puns can't hurt too bad, so make the joke!
• BE CLEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! If it doesn't get on my flow, it doesn't get on my ballot.
• I will vote on whatever as long as it isn't blatantly evil (i.e. racism good)
• I don't flow off the doc. I am not against checking docs if I miss something, but I will be flowing almost 100% off of what you say
• YOU NEED WARRANTS!!!!!!!!!!
• If you show me a flow or an updated wiki before the round ends, I will up your speaks based on how good the flow is and if your wiki is done right
• I might have the worst poker face of anyone ever. I'm actively trying to work on it, but don't read too much into my expressions, they're incredibly dramatic.

POLICY

CX

Don't be overly rude. Making fun of or bullying the other team is the fastest way to drop your speaks and also just makes you look bad.

Open cross is fine, but partner doing/getting crossed should be doing most of the talking. If you butt into a cross ex while your partner is speaking or talk over them, your speaks are tanking. You should trust your partner's ability to debate.

Cross ends when you stop asking questions; no you may not take the rest of cross as prep.

Speaks

Please control your volume. I understand it's easy to get loud during a speech, I do it too, but scream spreading is a fantastic way to make me grumpy and give me a headache.

GET. OFF. OF. YOUR. BLOCKS. I do not care how good they are. Blocks are a tool that have a time and place. That time and place is not your entire 2nc. I believe in you, you can do line by line I promise. Bad line by line and warrant analysis is infinity better than 8 minutes of obvious blocks with no clash.

I will clear you max 5 times per speech before I just start flowing what I can understand. After 5 warnings it's your speaks on the line, not mine.

K affs

My experience watching, debating, and running k-affs is limited, but the more I debate/judge the more I come to think k v k is my favorite kind of rounds. Be ready to defend your framework!!! if you run a k aff, more power to you but you still have to explain your IL, impacts, ect just as well if not better than a policy aff would. If I don't understand what the world looks like under your aff and how that differs from the squo, the threshold for an aff ballot is going to be pretty high. I think too often K-affs get away with vague and cheaty descriptions that change every speech that would get a policy aff topicalitied into the ground. I typically buy that if you win your method is good, you win the ballot. I don't think you have to win any ROB past that, and once we get into "ballot gives us energy" territory you start to lose me. I'm most familiar with queer theory (especially pess), semiocap (mainly deluze), cap, and fem. Don't let my limited understanding of theory stop you from running whatever you want (in the words of Lucia Scott, "im not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard"), but the less I understand what is going on the harder it is for me to write my ballot for you.

For neg v K affs, I tend to find carded TVAs and legit, well explained impacts on T more persuasive than throwing 20 billion da's at the wall and seeing what they drop on framework. However, as said above a love a k v k debate, and I always appreciate when a neg team goes for a k against a k-aff instead of just framework/t-usfg (no shade to t-usfg or framework, they're both lovely they just get stale). I also tend to really enjoy substantial case debate against k-affs, I've noticed a lot of teams shy away from it (usually in favor of t/fw), so a good case debate against a k-aff will always be good to watch.

Policy affs

This section is short because like, it's a policy aff, but please please please have a legit internal link chain im begging you. It feels like 1 out of every 3 affs has a godawful internal link chain and im so sick of it. I tend to prefer hard right impacts on policy affs, as I think soft left impacts/affs leave you pretty susceptible to the k just saying "state bad" and leaving you high and dry on the case page. Also, really efficient (and good) case speeches I are probably the fastest ways to boost your speaks. In contrast, clearly having zero idea what your entire aff is about is the fastest way to drop your speaks.

For the neg, I always love when a neg teams treats presumption like an actual option. Case debate is slowly dying and it's driving me insane. No saying "da outweighs case" at the top of every da flow does not count as actual case debating (more on that in the da section).

FW/T

"Fairness" or "education" are not impacts, they're words. You have to say why education or fairness matter, or they are not being evaluated as impacts. Policy args can't just say their impact is "war" with no explanation, so framework args don't get to just say "fairness" with no impacting. On some level, I do agree that I am an educator and this space is for education, but I can easy be convinced otherwise. Against K-affs, I tend to find fw more compelling that t-usfg because I think it's a lot harder to defend the state than a resolution. On t, I prefer competing interns over resonability because I think it tends to lead to more clash and makes for more lively and interesting debates, and overall is just more compelling that "we're close enough so vote for us." I think you T should probably be legit. I'm not going to stop you from running subsets against every aff you ever hit, but I'm also going to be sympathetic to the aff if its obviously topical.

Theory

I don't like cheaty/hidden voting issues. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, but it does mean your speaks will tank. Hiding arguments only shows me you don't trust your ability win this debate flat out, which is a bummer. I will also often to be a little sympathetic to the other team if your procedural is some hidden or cheaty bs. I also tend to think condo is fine, but i can be easily convinced otherwise. I WILL NOT VOTE ON AN AUTHOR INDICT IF YOU ARE IN NOVICE PACKET. (that is not the same as ev/qual comparison you should do that in and out of novice packet). I also have a higher threshold for voting on author indicts flat out than most, especially in novice rounds. If I buy that the other team didn't know and they genuinely apologize, then the threshold for my vote on it will be pretty high. That being said, if these indicts are A) cross applied to other flows (like as a rhetoric link on the k or a reason their scholarship is bad) or B) terribly mishandled/dropped by the other team, I will have no issue voting on it. For micro-aggression voting issues, you have to win 1) that it occurred in this debate 2) explain why that makes this space unsafe/unfair for you and 3) explain why my vote resolves/helps/discourages said micro-aggression or its consequences. For other voting issues I judge like I would any other argument, tech > truth.

Clipping

Just like, don't do it y'all. It's a bummer if you are so insecure in your debate abilities that you have to cheat.

If someone gets called out for clipping I will stop the round. If there is proof and I agree they were clipping, they get the lowest allowed speaks and an auto L. If I don't agree, the team that called them out will get an L and docked speaks. If I catch you clipping I will first make sure, and then round will be stopped, and you will get lowest speaks and an L. Everyone not clipping will probably get between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

DAs

Please have a legit link chain and real reasons why your impacts o/w. I think da o/w is a seriously good way to take down the aff and i love when someone really understands and explains it instead of just spreading through blocks. Aff specific links are always greatly appreciated and will make it infinitely easier to win. If you can contextualize a generic link go for it, but the more specific the link is the easier it is to win.

CPs

I think these are a powerful tool for a neg vote, but you need a text and you need solvency. Your cp's cannot just be a bad version of an aff, they need to be textually and functionally competitive. I'm not a fan of cheaty process counterplans, and I'll prob be sympathetic to aff theory claims on fairness if your counterplan is cheaty, but if its good, pop off.

Ks

I once got told I "looked like a K debater", so needless to say I do like the kritik (I've never been told I look like a K hack so policy teams you're safe). If given the choice, I would much rather watch a round on the k proper w/ an extended alt than fw, but it's not a huge deal you do you. I'm most familiar with cap, fem, semiocap (mainly deluze), and queer theory (mainly pess), but seriously do not let that stop you from running whatever you want (in the words of Lucia Scott, "im not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard"). Having no idea what you're talking about on your K is a good way to lose speaks. Make sure you know what you're talking about or at least how to fake it. No, your link probably does not have to be directly to the plan (I can be convinced otherwise, as with everything else in this paradigm). I am fine with generic links as long as they get specified, but please don't just read a link to the squo and say "but the aff expands it". I tend to buy that Ks get reps links, but the aff gets to weigh.

CONGRESS

I know the topics pretty well, but explanation never hurt anyone

Its been a hot second since I've done congress, so I seriously encourage you to keep your own precedence and POLITELY tell me if you think I messed up

Have fun

Speak so I can hear you.

If I can't hear you, I'll tell you one time, but after that I'm only judging what I hear

Utilize cross ex.

Use evidence outside the packet or what you coach just gives you, new args are a great way to get my attention in speeches.

If y'all have any questions before or after the round ASK ME!!! Debate is an educational space and I want y'all to learn.

LD

I don't do LD, but I know the basics of how it works.

Don't use a bunch ld-specific jargon or assume I know how everything works.

Explain why you're winning this round (JUDGE INSTRUCTION!!!)

explain your value and why it matters

PUBLIC FORUM

Just read my policy section

Don't yell over people in cross-fire

if y'all read this far, make a drag race or legend of Zelda reference in your speech and I'll boost your speaks <3