He/Him pronouns, email: chaffindebate@gmail.com (though I prefer SpeechDrop if possible)

*ANY FORM OF BIGOTRY/PREJUDICE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. ANY HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA, RACISM, ETC WILL BE AN AUTO LOSS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE ROUND GOES*

Current Senior. I have debated at Olathe Northwest for all four years. Mostly Open, some DCI. I will be flowing, and am cool with whatever arguments you want to run. Tech over truth, but not absolutely. I default policymaker but will defer to in-round framing. I mostly run policy args, so that's what I am most comfortable/familiar with, but I am good with Ks, as long as you explain your stuff.

TLDR: I will be able to follow (and vote for) anything, so run what you feel most comfortable with.

Hi. I am a senior at the Barstow School.

email: kevin.gill@barstowschool.org

General Stuff: Be nice. Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I am open to almost any argument. Let's try to keep the debate moving and hopefully avoid tech issues. I prefer open cross-x.

Topicality: Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp and mpact out why it’s comparatively better.

K: Explain why winning the framework matters and how you still win the debate even if you lose the framework. You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework. 2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate. Overall, if you NEG just make sure you fully understand the K and make sure you can answer questions about it.

CP: I like all CP's. If you think a CP is bad, then it's your job to beat it. Just make sure you have an impact/reason to show that you have a net-benefit.

DA: I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact is essential for both sides.

Don't Clip.

I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning. Run whatever you feel comfortable with as long as you are mindful of what you are doing. Please don't say anything you don't understand.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team that is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Speaker points: I usually give around a 28.6 or above

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 policymaker judge, so ultimately I vote on whether I think the aff is a better idea than the status quo/competitive alternative. I'll line up the impacts at the end of the debate to decide which team has the better policy. As such, I look to impact calculus and framework arguments to help me decide which impacts are of greater importance.

I enjoy different styles of debate, but tend to prefer more traditional types of arguments. I can handle speed when reading evidence, but please slow down tags and analytical arguments, especially in rebuttals. If you're spreading analytics I will almost certainly not understand them.

I will readily vote on topicality. It's important that a team justify why their model of debate is better.

I've debated against kritiks now and again, but I'm not very experienced in them. It's easy to convince me that a kritikal alternative is impractical or insolvent.

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

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 John Mai, I'm a junior as well as a third year debater at Olathe Northwest.

General

I'm OK with anything that both sides agree to.

If something is wrong argument wise, I won't vote on it unless the other team brings it up.

Please give speeches as if I'm a parent judge, you'll get more constructive feedback that way.

Have fun and debate with decorum :)

Negative

On Topicality, if it's a novice case, I am not considering T.

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.

tech > truth - if you drop an arg you're cooked as long as the other team brings it up

extend args and remind me what each card says

i love topicality and theory and I will always weigh it the most if you tell me to unless its silly

use cross x to set yourself up for future args - be assertive but don't be mean

NO NEW IN THE 2!

have fun pls

if you play brawl stars during prep you will NOT be getting first speaker!

congress:

just be organized and refer back to what other speakers have said - Quality of the words you're saying is very important but how you deliver it is what you should focus on

I prefer email chain, but speech drop is fine

Please add me to the email chain--- charlotte.cuts.cards@gmail.com

Have your cameras on for online debate

My pronouns are she/her/hers. You can call me charlotte or judge, idrc.

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

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.

Top level

• IMPACT CALC AND JUDGE INSTRUCTION PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
• Tech 95% truth 5%
• ANY bigotry or hate speech will result in an automatic 24 (or lower) speaks, L, and a call to tab and your coach(es). My role above all else is to make sure this space is safe for everyone.
• I like overviews, but it should be 30 seconds at the very max
• I prefer plan text at the top of the speech so I know what y'all are proposing before I know why we need it, but its not a huge deal
• Be respectful! You don't look as cool as you think you do being rude to the other team
• Good puns will do a lot for your speaks, bad puns can't hurt too bad, so make the joke!
• SLOW DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!! If it doesn't get on my flow, it doesn't get on my ballot.
• I will vote on literally anything
• 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!!!!!!!!!!
• I don't like judge kick. I'm not going to do the debate for you, thats your job.
• I will yell clear/volume as many times as I need to

POLICY

CX

Stand your ground.If the other team is trying to sidestep, make them answer. If someone is cutting you off before you can answer call them out.

That being said, 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.

It is ALWAYS ok to say "I don't have that answer right now"

I am pro-cutting people off to a point. Don't let them monopolize your cross and talk for 2 minutes about one question, but also don't cut them off after 3 seconds.

K affs

I love k's and k-affs, but I'm not a K hack. Be ready to defend your framework!!! if you run one, 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. I'm most familiar with queer theory, cap, and fem, but don't let my understanding stop you from running whatever you want.

Policy affs

Even though I love k's, there is nothing link a good case debate on a policy aff. I tend to like soft left impacts, but run whatever you want. Especially be ready to defend your IL, I've seen a lot of really bad I/L chains that make it pretty hard to win if the neg calls you out.

FW

"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.

DAs

DAs are a staple of debate and I love them, but 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 has a well explained da o/w block. I am partial to a ptx da bc I love them, but run whatever just explain it

CPs

I think these are a powerful tool for a neg vote, but you need a plan text and you need solvency. Your cp's cannot just be a bad version of an aff, they need to be good and 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 am a HUGE fan of Ks, and I think that soft left impacts on Ks are a really good way to bring variety into a round. I'm most familiar with cap, fem, and queer theory, but run whatever you like. Having no idea what you're talking about on your K, thats a good way to lose speaks. Make sure you know what you're talking about, and spend extra time on framework. I tend to buy that Ks get reps links, but the aff gets to weigh their impact.

Theory

I don't like cheaty or hidden theory args. I'll vote on them, but i don't find them nearly as compelling as well written arguments. Hidden args will also drop your speaks, it just shows that you know your args aren't good enough to win on flat out. Besides that, I like T quite a bit, and make sure you impact out your theory args. "Ruins fairness" is not an impact unless you tell me why fairness matters. I also tend to think condo is fine until a point, but i can be easily convinced otherwise.

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!!!)

Keep in mind I'm used to policy, so I'm going to weigh your impacts at the end of the round above most else.

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, tell me a joke and I'll boost your speaks on how good it is.