Hey, I am Amelia. I'm okay with you calling me judge or my name. Ghost extensions don't get voted on please do the work to actually extend the cards with warrants and not just author tags. You can absolutely spread cards but read analytics. I'm okay with all CP's and DA's as long as they aren't super weird/clearly don't link. I am not super huge on K but if you want to read it you can. T debates are fine just make sure you extend everything pls. Don't have an attitude with the opponents I will give you lower speaks. Also please do speech drop my mac can't efficiently do email change because of my district's policy on outside emails.

Hello! My name is Grace Hartwell and I am a senior at Olathe South who has been debating for the last three years. I consider myself more of a KDC debater, but I have been to two DCI tournaments so speed is fine with me.

Big Picture

Tech>Truth

Run whatever you want

Like I said I am more of a KDC debater, but have debated speed rounds so go as fast as you want, however, please slow down on analytics and put them in the doc if you want to make sure I flow them.

I believe that judge instruction is important, so tell me what I should prioritize and what I should be voting for. This means I think framing and impact calc is super important and will influence my vote.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

I hate rudeness in debate and will mark you down for rude remarks, yelling in the cross, and implying the other team is dumb. Debate is supposed to be fun, so please be respectful to the other team.

I genuinely dislike theory that isn't T. I find my threshold for condo rather high and am very unlikely to vote for it unless the other team just doesn't respond.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

Disadvantages: I find generic links acceptable, but the more specific the better. I hate when the team's argument is their link is generic so it doesn't apply; you need to have reasons you don't link rather than it's just generic. If you make an argument to prefer your evidence because it's newer make sure to tell me why that matters. I like it when teams cross-apply the DA to advantages and explain how they interact. If they have an innovation advantage and you have a DA saying it hurts innovation cross applying it and explaining how that turns that advantage would definitely up your speaks!

Topicality:I love a good T debate. I don't necessarily believe that just because you are untopical you should lose. If you lose that you are untopical, but you win the voters debate that you provide the most education, etc., I'll probably still vote for you. I find that I vote for the team that provides the most education in the round. So for aff explain why your case improves education, and neg explain why the aff hurts education. The neg needs to explain the out-of-round impact and why the aff is a bad model of debate as a whole. Also, I believe that T is not a reverse voting issue.

Counterplans:I'm cool with any type of counterplan such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. If the aff wins the net benefit, I normally find them winning the perm unless there is a specific reason they can't coexist. Make sure you explain fully how you solve the affs impact and the net benefit thoroughly.

K: I am familiar with anthro, cap, and set-col, however, I am more than willing to learn more! Just make sure to explain the literature and really explain the link, impact, and alt well. I can be a little dumb so you really need to explain the lit to me. Tell me what the world of the alt is and the role of the ballot. I need a clear picture of the issue and its impact to vote for the K. My thoughts on generic links are the same as disads, but the more specific the better.

K Affs:I ran a K aff my junior year so I am well versed in the framework aspect. I think K affs really come down to the framework and the education gained or lost in this round. However, you still need an issue and a solution. The same things for K apply here but with more emphasis on the role of the ballot. What does my ballot do? It needs to be clear in the 1AC what my ballot means and carried through. I do find it difficult however to win on a K aff, so do what you will with that.

FW: Same with the rest I default normally to who provides the most education, but am willing to vote on something else if instructed to. I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted not only by this debate round but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. If you lose FW however, you most likely lose my ballot as well.

Theory:I dislike most theories besides T and there is a very slim chance I will vote on it unless the team is really abusive. I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate disclosure theory and there is less than a 1% chance I will vote on it. I will only consider it if you disclose in person and they didn't; maybe. If they looked on the wiki when they were not on the wiki; maybe. However, not being on the wiki isn't a voting issue or one side saying no, and then neither side disclosing.

On-Case: I think on-case comes down to turns and solvency. It is very important to have offense on-case cause if worse worst-case scenario they don't solve and the best case is I get their impacts I will still vote for on-case, however, the aff needs to explain to me that. I think it helps probability arguments, but some offense will help secure my vote.

hi i’m eliza and i’m a third year debater!!

generally, please be kind to the other team in round. i will not tolerate any racist, sexist or hateful dialogue.

speed: read at a pace that can be understood, but i don’t care if you are fast

please make sure you are telling me why i should vote for you!! extend arguments and point out what the other team dropped!! i will only vote on things if you are telling me why i should

good luck! have fun! if you have any questions after the round you can email me at 3092934@smsd.org

Hi! I'm a fourth year debater at SME and debate mainly national circuit

Pronouns she/her

Pls add me to the chain - leonard.sophia.103@gmail.com

TL:DR

I am chill with whatever you want to read as long as you clash

General Notes

• racism, sexism, homophobia, violence is an auto loss
• Tech>>>>>>truth
• If you have an accommodation request pls ask with me present - debate is your space and I want everyone to feel comfortable in it but I feel weird judging an accommodation violation argument if I didn't know there was one
• I will not adjudicate things that happened outside the round
• Ok with speed if you're clear
• I like open cross but prep before cross-ex will steal your speaker points
• A debate without good clash is lame. Card dumping is boring
• If you make me laugh I might boost your speaks :)
• Please don't pack up during the 2AR, it stresses me out
• I don't specifically function on a policy making paradigm, it's your job to tell me how to evaluate the round. I think debate is probably a game but not necessarily
• RVIS ARE NOT REAL
• #Bringbackwarrants2024 - extending the tag of evidence isn't compelling

AFF: whatever floats your boat

For the neg: only reading case defense is boring

For the aff: A really defensive 2ar is never a great idea and leans towards a presumptive ballot. Take advantage of the last speech because framing arguments are really compelling

Planless affs: I'm not super familiar with the lit or judging these debates. Not good for KvK but KvT-USFG is more even split

T: I HATE ADJUDICATING T. If you decide to disregard this and go for T it better be at least the majority of the 2nr. I default to competing interps even if they're silly

K: I've read militarism and cap so I'm relatively familiar with those lit bases, and have some knowledge of set col, security, pess, but don't assume I'm super familiar.

Fairness is only an internal link if you say it is :)

2nr's I find compelling are 1) Framework and link analysis or 2) links and alt especially with real analysis on causal solvency

I really love when teams impact turn one another's framework or do impact calc on FW

DA’s: Idk I'm not picky on DAs, but I do love smart impact framing arguments in the rebuttals - mitigation or prerequisite arguments are underrated. I think politics or elections on this topic is squirrely at best

CP’s: go for it but just know I’m not great for a competition debate or condo debate - I think 2nc counterplans are devious but do your thing I suppose

Theory:I'm ok for it, not a huge fan of non resolutional theory. If you hide aspec from your opponents you might accidentally hide it from me too

I'm Ben(He/Him). I'm a second year debater at SME

Tech>Truth

Add me to email chain:raddog923@gmail.com

K: If you run it, make sure you explain what the world of the alt looks like. If you don't drop framework blocks, speak clearly.

T: explain the violation, don't just read interp.

DA: I enjoy creative DAs, but make sure they have every aspect and the link chain is plausible

CP: Same as DA

Aff: I lean towards policy affs, see above for K. I like creative policy affs.

Neg: Depth>Breadth. Make sure all arguments you run are complete.

Cross X should be treated as a speech. Closed Cross X for novices unless both teams agree on open.

Don't steal prep.

Prompting is ok, don't throw a fit if the other team prompts.

Don't scream/yell, but you can emphasize points.

Good with speed as long as you are clear.

Right my ballot for me.

Extend Warrants, Not Tags!

Don't pack up during the 2AR.

Be kind and have fun. Racism, sexism, homophobia, or any form of hate speech or violence will be an auto loss.

Tell me the typo in my paradigm when you enter the room for better speaks.

hi! I'm Mira and I'm a second year debater at SME :)

email is miramcinnes@icloud.com if you want to do a chain but speechdrop is preferred

I have a fair amount of knowledge on this year's topic but please still err on the side of overexplaining your arguments, especially the more niche they are!

general

• tech >>> truth

• having good evidence is important but analytics are also essential to clash. it's important to know what you need to use cards in responding to and what you'd be better served explaining in your own words

• please for the love of all that is good and pure FLOW

• I think cx is always open but do whatever both teams agree on

• I'll generally-or at least would strongly prefer to-only vote on well-developed arguments that are extended throughout the round. the worse or more poorly developed an argument is (ex. a DA with no link or the link is to a different aff-yes I see this ALL the time), the lower my threshold for answering it. you do still need to respond, you just don't need to spend two minutes on something you could beat in 30 seconds

• you need to answer an argument in the soonest speech you have to do so-immediately following your opponent's, or the 1ar to answer neg block arguments. I despise whatever this new trend is of the 1nc taking off case and 2nc taking case-just no. I consider case totally dropped when this happens and generally don't evaluate new answers that should have been in an earlier speech in any scenario

• stealing prep is bad and it's so obvious when you're doing it

• I see no valid reason to give the other team a paper copy of your 1ac/give that speech off paper and use speechdrop for the rest of the debate. imo it's needless gatekeeping and if your offense is predicated on your opponents not being able to save a digital copy of your speech, examine evidence more carefully, or rehighlight, your speech probably isn't that good. obviously you can debate entirely on paper if you want but I'm not sure anyone does? PLEASE word docs if you're able to, or at the very least google docs. pdfs suck, and it's pretty easy to convert one to a word doc even if you don't use word. also, I really appreciate organized speech docs-these make it much easier to flow and for me to follow along if I'm reading evidence!

• please don't be the person playing games on your phone the entire time. even if you're done participating in the round, you should still be seeing if your partner needs help and flowing! I won't vote you down for this but I think it shows a lack of respect for the people in the round

• a couple of non-argument related things that can result in a loss: blatant clipping, rudeness towards your opponents, any form of discriminatory rhetoric (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)

• debate is supposed to be a positive experience! have fun, be kind to everyone, and take the round seriously. I'll always give very detailed feedback on speeches, cx, and why I voted the way I did

with off case, I generally think quality > quantity if they need to be mutually exclusive, which let's be honest they usually do. but go for whatever you genuinely feel you can do well without totally throwing case debate out the window. also only run arguments you understand, your speaks will probably be bad if I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just reading blocks a varsity debater gave you

topicality: I LOVE t. like love love love. I'm in these debates all the time on both sides and I think when done well they're some of the most fun to watch. (random hot take: what is up with so many judges saying they're 1000% tech over truth, yet will only vote on t if it's completely dropped or the 1ac is about unicorns?? I'll vote on t vs an aff I think is topical if you win that it's not) a few important things: I evaluate this before the case debate and any other page of my flow so you really need to make sure it's responded to well. it's never an RVI though- like come on. I default to competing interps-go for reasonability at your own risk. when running t on the neg, just make sure you can provide a clear articulation of the violation and please please please give me good standards and voters that you extend throughout the round. I find myself persuaded by education as a voter more than anything else-that’s not to say I won’t consider things like fairness if you explain them well but I think in-round education and which team’s interp creates a better model of debate for education are more important

theory: almost no one runs theory at the novice level so there's not much for me to say about this other than please don't run joke theory arguments you're just using as a time suck. I'm generally reject the argument not the team so just know it'll take a lot of work to get me to vote on this and it should probably be the entire 2nr/2ar

Ks: this is where clear explanation and judge instruction are the most important for me. I need a clear link- for example, it's not enough to say cap bad, you have to tell me the specific bad + capitalist thing the aff does and WHY it's bad. I also probably won't vote on these without a strong alt. I despise alts that just say "reject the aff" because that's not even really an alt

CPs: fine with pretty much all types of CPs-I agree some like delay, consult, etc. are probably cheating but that also means they should be easier to beat so I’m not gonna say don’t run them. I’m a huge fan of PICs when done well. the biggest thing when running CPs overall is to make sure you have a very clear net benefit. also- CPs don't get a higher level of fiat than the aff plan. a lot of affs are letting neg teams get away with murder here, feel free to raise the issue if you don't think the neg should get to fiat something

DAs: obviously amazing. make sure you have all the parts (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) or it's pretty hard for me to vote on. aff specific links are the best. the key to winning on DAs is painting a picture of the world of the aff and explaining why that's bad

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Ella Quintana

she/her

ellavquint@gmail

SpeechDrop preferred---but email chain is fine

PLEASE DON'T SHAKE MY HAND (I'm sure you're nice, but don't)

Be nice and respectful (don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc)

Tech >>>> truth

For me, cross is always open (if you want it to be closed, talk to the other team and let me know before the round)

Run whatever you want -- have fun!

Tell me how to vote -- Judge instruction in rebuttals is how you get my vote

DAs- I'll vote on whatever

CPs - I'll vote on whatever

All counterplans are fine, just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate

T - I'll vote on whatever

I default to competing interpretations

I don't think reverse-voting issues are much of a thing unless something egregious happens

Theory - I'll vote on whatever

Kritiks- I'll vote on whatever theory you want to read, but know what you're reading

Have a clear 2NR link

If your strategy involves framework, just be clear about what framework disad you're going for and why your interpretation solves

Kritikal Affs- I'll vote on whatever

I don't have really any experience in KvK. I think fairness can be an i/L or an impact, and I don't lean any specific way, just be prepared to defend your claim. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solving fairness while only linking to the AFF offense half the time.

Add me to the email chain (or Speech Drop!)

kaitlynn.sedich@gmail.com

I DON'T SHAKE HANDS!

Hi! I'm Kaitlynn (they/she), and I am a senior debater from Free State. I have been involved in debate for a while now, and I know a lot about how it functions and this topic. If you ask for oral comments on speaking or strategy, I will give them, but everything will be on my ballot so don't worry! I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and coherent. I also don't mind cursing in the round, it adds passion, so do whatever you enjoy/will help you win:). I WILL NOT vote for you if you are harming the way the debate is supposed to function or being bigoted in any way. Let's get started!

TL;DR - Read what you are comfortable reading, be nice to each other, and format the speech so I can flow easily. If you have any questions, just ask!

Specifics--

Aff Case: I'm pretty open to whatever approach you might have or decide to take. However, I believe that the 1AC should be appropriately timed and understandable, that you shouldn't only have extinction impacts, and that you must understand what you are reading. The 1AC cross-ex should be the easiest to follow and is an excellent way to preface the debate. The only other thing I have to say here is that I think that lying in the 2AR is a fast way to count yourself out of the debate - lay things out for me how they were, and then explain why you still win ("even-if" arguments land on top).

Neg Approach: Don't utilize time sucks, I hate them and think they are cheater-y. I think running less offense and fully understanding it while having time for the aff case is in your best interest anyway. In the end, a lot of people think that being negative means losing the ballot because they choose to approach it that way. It's actually a really good place to be in since you can read pretty much anything as long as it links and the aff might not have something to answer it with/understand the argument. Use this to your advantage and be strategic - if I have to hear both you and your partner in the negative block say the exact same thing instead of splitting it, I will go crazy. Make sure you know what you're talking about, and you should be set.

Neg Specifics:

T: I am okay with T as long as you don't read it as a time suck and it's not your go-to strategy -- only read it if it is necessary.

DA: If you have all parts of the DA, you're doing great! I haven't found/seen one I haven't liked or viewed as not feasible in-round, but make sure you don't use generic links - or if you do, explain them well enough that they don't seem generic.

CP: I tolerate certain CPs, but I can get pickier about how they work in the debate - like if you want to read the States CP, make sure you have solvency for the States specifically because municipal governments have different governmental frameworks. I do have some hated CPs, but none are super relevant this year, so you should be fine.

K: I am not a K-Debater, but I do love hearing K's! If you feel comfortable reading one, go for it, maybe you'll knock my socks off! I am super familiar with Capitalism, Imperialism, Security, Fem IR, and SetCol, so if you are reading those, yippee! If not, don't worry, but make sure to over-explain your literature - I love learning new things.

Theory: Theory debates are cool! I don't think you should come into the round prepared to run theory, but if it comes up, go for it! I will most likely agree with the person who brought up the theory argument in the first place, but everything is relative because tech > truth.

Thanks for reading this far if you did, and good luck in the round!

I will give you +.3 speaks if you do a short, silly dance before the round starts

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• 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.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Yes email chain (I prefer Speechdrop if it's all the same but good with whatever) -eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. That is more of a statement of experience than philosophy; I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, I am likely to struggle to understand how you justify an affirmative ballot.

3) Debate is an oral activity. While I will want your speech docs, I flow based on what I hear. If I don't hear it, I will not fill in my flow later based on what you send.

4) I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed. (See below for my detailed approach to clipping.)

5) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement.

6) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. I don't generally believe in a conditional 2NR.

7) Flow the debate, not the speech doc. Very little moves my speaker point calculation down faster than debaters responding to arguments that were not made in the debate.

8) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please. If you fly through a theory block at maximum evidence speed, it probably won't all make it onto my flow.

9) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. While I can explain to my students a more modern offense-defense framework, I do still largely view T as a true-false question.

10) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

11) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

12) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

Clipping Policy

Clipping - Representing, through sending a speech doc or other means, that you have read evidence which was not read in the round. If evidence is highlighted, skipping any un-highlighted words is clipping; if evidence is not highlighted, skipping any un-underlined words is clipping. Verbal indications to "cut" or "mark" a card are acceptable indications that you have chosen not to read all of a particular card in the doc, and you should be prepared to provide a marked version of your speech to your opponents if requested.

Clipping continues to be a major issue in our activity. You are welcome to make a formal challenge, and if you do so, the relevant KSHSAA/NSDA/etc rules will control rather than my personal approach, which is:

1) If you clip a card, I will make my decision as though you did not read that card at all. It will be removed from my flow.

2) If you, as a team, clip four or more cards, you will lose my ballot on poor evidence ethics without the need for a formal challenge.

3) If both teams in a debate violate #2, I will decide the debate as normal based on any un-clipped cards from both sides.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence (i.e., paraphrasing) is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

Hey, I'm Gray (he/him), I'm a second year DCI debater at Shawnee Mission East. I debate policy on the aff, 50/50 policy/kritikal on the neg. Please ask in-round if you have any questions.

Email for all purposes - grayinpv5@gmail.com

TLDR:Good with all arguments, have fun, be nice, clash, do impact calc. Write my ballot for me

Top level: Run whichever arguments will allow you to put your best foot forward in the round (obviously excluding any harmful arguments, racism, sexism etc).

You will probably be able to tell in-round if something is convincing to me or not

Roadmaps and signposting are good - please don't jump between flows willy-nilly.

Final speech should be a high level of judge instruction and impact calc. If there's no offense in the speech, your ballot chances are low

CrossX can definitely effect your speaks in a positive way - aff teams should be able to defend/answer surface level questions regarding their aff. CX is closed unless both teams agree otherwise

I would say that my topic knowledge is pretty high but focused on patents mostly. Explaining important acronyms and legal jargon that is specific to your aff would be helpful.

Everyone should be using all or close to all of their speech time

Little things like rolling your eyes, scoffing, or laughing during your opponents speeches are bad ethos and will probably hurt your path to the ballot

If you're funny it'll boost your speaks a little bit

Using creative metaphors during your speech will improve your ethos. Confidence goes a long way, especially in CX

Dropped arguments are meaningless sans a team pointing it out and extending their own warrant. If you don't explain to me why the argument holds implications for the round, I probably won't vote on it.

Please don't pack up during the 2AR, or if you're a 1N, during the 2NR.

Good with speed provided I have time to flow - I'll clear you if I have no clue what you're saying

Don't steal prep.

On volume - I am completely okay with emotional speaking but please don't start screaming/yelling at me.

Everyone should flow the debate. It will help you improve as a debater even if you think it's pointless. Also it will help you not drop stuff.

Aff strat: I lean towards policy but if you're running a kritikal aff please explain it. I enjoy listening to creative policy affs, now that the season is almost over, running a packet aff is probably decreasing your win chance

Negative teams are allowed to kick out of arguments, assuming they do it correctly. Please don't yell at me about how the neg dropped a DA that they didn't go for.

Neg strat: Depth > breadth assuming I have to pick one, but time suck arguments are less persuasive to me. Speed is fine but I need pen time - see below on K fw.Offense specifically on the case page is entertaining and something I like - please don't just have 3 minutes of impact defense. I like neg teams that know the aff as well as or better than the aff speakers.

T: Reasonability is meaningless. Impact calc on T is needed. my threshold to vote on it is usually pretty high unless the aff A. drops it, and you point it out or B. the team is flagrantly untopical.

K: Familiar with Cap, security, set col. If you're spreading through fw blocks either slow down or send the analytics - I flow on paper. I don't think the neg needs to have an impenetrable alt in order to win the K as long as they're ahead on fw. On fw, please do impact calc - it's far more persuasive than 30 seconds of blocks and 8 fw DAs.

CP: I am a big fan of counterplans assuming they compete and have an NB. I ran a PIC basically every round last year and am definitely more likely to vote for a CP opposed to T or a standalone DA. Especially when you have a compelling INB

DA: Plan-specific links go a long way, but generics can be compelling if you warrant out to me why, case turns DA and DA turns case are both arguments I enjoy assuming they make sense and have warrants

Hey, y'all my name is Henry Swinburne Romine I am a fourth-year debater at Lawrence Free State High School these are my main guidelines. Reading a paradigm is good practice and I appreciate it. <3

1. DO NOT BRING COCONUTS INTO THE ROUND (I am not allergic DW IDRC).
2. Speak clearly I value content of speeches over speed.
3. I have dysgraphia a writing disability which impacts my ability to flow and write well in general this impacts the tone of my writing so I may seem harsh I promise after our round together you can attest I am not a malicious person.
4. I physically cannot flow because of this I will however take detailed notes on my laptop and get them to you in some form. That being said I may need time in between speeches to gather my thoughts.
5. I will not tolerate any form of hatred disdain or disregard for the wellbeing of others if you show any form of these I will immediately take note and take proportional action after the round.
6. I typically value understanding arguments and the ability to communicate thoughts effectively rather than talking faster than the other team or catching them on a technicality. That does not mean I don't pay attention to solvency or topicality or any of the other fundamentals. I am a lay judge plain and simple, But still know my way around an argument.
7. I am not super versed in the technicalities of debate (I mainly do KDC style) That being said make your point make it well and be civil. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be a conversation not a series of facts spouted at the opposing team. If you give a technical argument explain why it matters and what it means.
8. And for the love of all that is good don't open snacks during your opponents speeches.
9. DO NOT UNDER ANY I REPEAT ANY BRING COCONUTS INTO THE ROUND.

Hello, I'm a debater at De Soto High School! Idc what you call me, just don't get weird with it. I traditionally debate in open, but I have some (very little) experience in DCI. Please just treat me like a lay judge.

I'm fine with off arguments like DAs, CPs, and T, but I don't understand nor like Ks too much, so I wouldn't run them if I were you. Overall, tell me what to vote for, tell me the connections to arguments and how I should evaluate them, and make sure to actually extend your arguments, don't just say "extend blah blah" and move on.

I will be flowing along and (hopefully) in the speechdrop, so I don't mind speed in cards, but slow down for analytics so i can actually hear you please !!