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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey there

As a judge, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Best wishes

nargissuleman3@gmail.com

debating at ku '27

this is an activity that takes an insane amount of work, effort, and creativity. being in this round alone and having to read this paradigm is a testament to the time you have invested in this activity, so congratulations on all your hard work. that being said, i would say that my debate background is largely critical, and i have spent a majority of my time reading/debating antiblackness, afropess, set col, militarism, etc. for me, warranted analysis, properly extended arguments, and clear judge instruction are most definitely the way to get my ballot. know that my background is not the extent of my comfortability with your preferred argumentation.

yes, judge adaptation, but most importantly, read what you are comfortable with in front of me. i have judged and coached a variety of teams with varying styles of debate so i promise whatever you read i gotchu.

k affs

i think that your aff should have at least some connection to the topic, or a thorough reason as to why it shouldn't. if your aff is performative, don't let it get lost after the 1AC, especially if its tied to whatever method you are advocating for. i think that the easiest way to get my ballot is rob/roj. if at the end of the debate i am left feeling confused as to what your relationship to the ballot is, and why your model OR this debate uniquely is significant and outweighs the other impacts in the debate, then it is going to be difficult for me to vote for you in this situation. for fw, competing interpretations are the best way to go. i am largely of the belief that if you have kritiked a set of research practices/models/wording of the topic, you should propose an alternative to those structures. that being said, this may not be the best method for every aff, and i would advocate for this being something you consider as you construct your 1ACs in the first place, because i do also think impact turns are good, but no necessarily for every aff.

fw v k affs

if you are able to discuss why your model of debate is inclusive and allows for multiple points of education to be accessed including the aff's, you are automatically in a good position in these types of debates. i think that clash is always a better impact than fairness, and i find most fairness debates to be quite shallow - but u do u ig. fw makes the debate about models, so defend to me why your model is good/why debate under your model is more desirable, and im voting neg. i think the tva is probably better than ssd arguments. remember the tva doesnt have to solve for the entirety of the aff's impacts, BUT prove that the affs model of debate is accessible while being topical.

k v k affs

i think that these are some of the most exciting debates to judge/participate in, and i really appreciate the increasing creativity in these types of debate. this is a question of competing methods and at the end of the debate i should know why the negs/affs method is preferable and thorough impact calc is crucial. the aff probably gets a permutation here, BUT the net benefit(s) need to be gas and i should believe that without the aff, the disads are triggered. i love link turns in these kinds of debates and think they are super strategic. for the negative, clearly articulating why the aff can't overcome the link and why the aff links to the net benefit, make it very difficult for the aff to win the perm.

policy v k

fw is so insanely important in these debates. most of the time believe that the aff should get to weigh the consequences of the plan against a competitive alternative. the most strategic position for you is LINK TURNNNN and disads to the alt. additionally, permutations are good and i dont think you need to be spam reading 7 of them in the 1AR but a few are strategic. i think that a lot of Ks dont have unique links and links are usually just towards the status quo. dont get caught up in a bunch of jargon and lose the basis of what ur trying to say.

k v policy

link specificity is good. if the alternative isnt able to overcome the links then i think you are put in a difficult position. the fw debate should provide reasons as to why your interpretation of what debates look like are good for both teams in this round/or a good model for debates to operate under. best argumentation to the perm is why the aff links to the net benefit/disads to the permutation obviously. my familiarity with varying Ks are in the o/v of my paradigm. yes you still should take case in the 2NR imo, but obviously not necessary in every debate.

random thoughts

• you probably going to lose a debate against a k-aff with no case in the 2NR
• do not defend israel as a good hegemonic power and/or aid to israel in front of me. find somewhere else to defend genocide!
• debate is a site of education and idea cultivation. do not ruin that for anyone else with racism, sexism, islamaphobia, transphobia, other -isms etc.
• yes read at whatever speed you want but if you start spitting everywhere and acting like u about to take ur last breath....please.
• include a soccer reference/joke and i will boost your speaks 0.1-0.3 depending on how hard i laugh.

My paradigm is geared toward an educational audience. I was a policy debater in high school in Kansas City and also debated at Missouri State in the late 90s.

I appreciate clash - I expect the speeches to build during the constructive speeches and for you to not only present your arguments but also address the arguments of your opponent.

Cross Examination is important and a way for you to further your position. Please use all your CX time.

Rebuttles should focus on why your arguments should result in a win for your side and why a vote for your side is better than a vote for your opponent's arguments.

Please use evidence for your arguments.

I am open to any arguments you want to run, e.g., topicality, inherency, solvency, counterplans, disadvantages, and Kritiks.

I am a flow judge and appreciate it if you give a flow roadmap.

My Background
I have an extensive background in competitive speech and debate, with experience in policy debate (CX), oratory, and legislative debate at both high school and collegiate levels. I've been to camps and enjoy new trends and seeing how this experience has evolved. My graduate studies focused on policy analysis and rhetorical strategies employed by young debaters. Competitive debate shaped my understanding of argumentation, strategy, and critical thinking, and I bring that perspective into judging. I believe debate is a uniquely rewarding activity that fosters intellectual growth and should remain both challenging and enjoyable.

My public speaking approach:

I do not expect public speaking perfection. If you are working on your public speaking skills, you can absolutely tip the scales with your argumentation and intellect. This is a technique that you should be practicing more than a spread/speed flow. I don't mind a spread - and practiced spread debate myself - but remember -- if you can't back up that approach with a lot of intellectual discipline, it will fail. I will see right through it.

I don't care what you wear, how you sit, if you stand. I want to see "a mind at work."

You can send me your case. My email is coringilbert@gmail.com Why would you do this? Because you just want to save time. Because you've crafted a case that will dominate the discussion and you are focused on stock issues and wish to empower me to dig in to prep.

General Paradigm

Anything is valid if you signpost, signal and stick to your framework. Don't try to do too much. I appreciate attention to the stock issues, but I appreciate the evolving nature of this activity and if you choose to adjust to T/R, gaming model, or offer a kritik -- do so with confidence and walk the judge(s) fully through the model you are using. Strive to make sense. Work to be crystal clear, as the round moves on, what elements are being dropped by the other side.

Theory: I'm open to them, but you had better bring the thunder in terms of providing clear rationales for each element of the theory. DO NOT ASSUME that your theory will be acceptable. Theoretical debate frames have to float and if you present one, it's got to be focused on a traditional debate outcome. Your judges (myself included) expect to be able to explain clearly a rationale for a decision on the ballot. Read the room. If your theory is ineffective -- don't be afraid to punt.

If I hear an argument that is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic or Anti-Semitic -- you will lose. Similarly, I have no issue with passion, healthy intellectual aggression, and even a little passive-aggressive gamesmanship. But candor should never be confused with condescension.

I love a clean flow at the end of the day. Give me a reason to cross out arguments that have been covered, circle things left untouched and structure a ballot with insight on how you might improve.