I was a speech and interp kid NOT a debater- have judged debate before though

Spread at your own risk - if I miss it - I miss it :)

If you run a K it better be darn good and very backed up - if its not then why run it?

Give the how AND the why for your cards

I love roadmaps, they help me flow along - when you miss them, it makes my life hard

Cross x - be nice :)

Be ethical and cool

Ryan Corrigan (he/him/his)
Assistant Coach - Olathe North
Email Chain - ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com
Lansing '22,KU '26

POLICY DEBATE:

TL;DR:

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

• I will do what I can to follow along but I have the least experience with k-aff rounds, so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. I am becoming more comfortable as I judge more rounds, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges, especially on framework.

Intellectual Property specific:

A lot of this topic can be pretty jargony, so try to keep it understandable and accessible for everyone in the round. Great that you understand it, but if you are not able to explain it to the other team or the judge that is not ideal. It is not beneficial for education/competition if you are winning simply because the other team does not know what you are talking about.

General Thoughts:

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

impact calc >>>

judge instruction/signposting >>>

Please don’t shake my hand. I will not think any differently of you and you can show that you care in other ways that do not involve directly spreading germs.

Be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

Argument Preferences:

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their arguments and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time researching. When I debated, I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro), but do not let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a judge, I care less about the arguments you read and more about how well you execute those arguments. If you have any specific questions about my argument preferences, though, feel free to clarify before the round. I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Speed:

Speed is good, but make sure it is clear. I am not a machine at flowing, so maybe go around 80-90% of your top speed if you think you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit. Debate is a communicative activity, so spending the time to communicate your argument matters.If I did not catch the argument because you spread through your pre-written analytics, then it will probably not be on my flow or on my ballot. If you want to ensure that I catch it, then slow down a little or really signpost and draw attention to it.

If you are going to read something that is not on the doc, maybe slow down a little to give time to pick up what you are putting down. I think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. If you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc, then the arguments are probably not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it instead of winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for in-depth debates that clash with the nuance of your argument, rather than counting on a technical mistake.

CONGRESS/LD/PFD:

Compete in the style that you are comfortable with. I do think there is some value in practicing argumentation in different styles, meaning I am not the biggest fan of turning LD/PFD into policy debate. Ultimately you are the one competing, so you do you and I will do what I can to facilitate the round regardless of your argumentation style.

Congress:

• Active participation in the chamber by giving persuasive speeches AND asking thoughtful questions will help to improve your ranks.
• After the first or second speech on a given bill, there should be clash with the previous speeches to contextualize it to the round. Your pre-written speech is good, but reading it without updating it to the arguments made in previous speeches is not good.

LD:

• Clash with the value/criterion level of the debate. In-depth value debating is good because you are letting your opponent get away with a lot by not clashing enough here. Tell me why to prefer your value/criterion.
• If you are treating LD like policy debate, then make sure your opponent is comfortable with this before the round.

PFD:

• Clash with the framework level of the debate. Tell me why to prefer your framework.
• Grand crossfire can become pointless very fast, so try not to talk over the other team.
• If you are treating PFD like policy debate, then make sure your opponent is comfortable with this before the round.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

• The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
• Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
• Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
• This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
• I am not going to stop you from doing open cross-ex, but I really think it is overutilized and generally uneducational. In most situations, the best outcome is that you look mean or make your partner look incompetent. If your strategy revolves around not letting your partner speak in cross-ex, do not expect to receive high speaker points from me.

LHS '23

KU '27

For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com

TL:DR - Pop off. Have fun and don't be racist

Policy

any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem

i debated policy for 4 years in high school in kansas and primarily did k debate (set col and cybernetics) and tech

i believe debate is a game that can be more than a game

i am not currently debating so I may miss things if you go full speed (~300 wpm). signpost

i love theory, but condo is the only one I consider a viable 2ar

t is generally not an rvi unless substantial offense says otherwise

there is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if theory isn't argued

i adore kritiks. Run them idc just explain how the k functions and do good k debate things. i believe rejection is an alt

k affs need compartmentalization but i'll happily vote on them

LD

[copy] [paste bigotry warning] Don't be a terrible person :)

i debated LD for 4 years in high school in kansas and was the 2023 5a state champ. i'm down for traditional/technical args. Just don't turn it into a policy round please

i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the mechanism or thesis the case achieves the value

i prefer offense > defense on v/crit debate but can be persuaded otherwise

i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work

topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it

overall, i believe in argument innovation and creativity so feel free to run anything and everything in front of me

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.

Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano

Current Affiliation: Kansas State University

Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.

List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:

• Real world impacts.
• Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
• Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)

List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:

• Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
• Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.

Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.

List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:

• Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
• Impact Calc.

List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:

• Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
• Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.

Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.

4 years policy in highschool

Not the best with crazy speed

drewraney2@gmail.com

Duo and POI enthusiast.

Pronouns: They/them - yes I am fem-presenting, doesn't matter. I will vote you down for repeatedly misgendering me or anyone else in the round. On the subject, I will probably ask for everyone's pronouns.

Email for email chains: defeateddrum@gmail.com

PLEASE use an email chain OR speechdrop, my computer doesn't like flash drives for some reason lol.

Experience:

3 years of Varsity Debate at Lansing High School. I was a finalist at Iowa Caucus and made it to Quarters at Glenbrooks. I was a competitor for Lansing at Kansas Regionals and State Tournaments for two years , I also qualified and competed at CFL and NSDA's tournaments.

Foreword: Be good people. I will not hesitate to vote you down for any transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and whatnot, no matter who it's directed towards. I will take off speaker points and leave a comment on the ballot if a male debater is blatantly speaking over a woman or fem-presenting person in cross-ex or anywhere else; this has happened to me in-round, I know what the difference between an aggressive cross-ex and misogyny is. If I hear or see you in any way harassing or bullying your opponents before, during, or after round, you will be voted down. This includes running things like Heidegger; I will vote you down if you run a Nazi's arguments. If you think the other team/ anyone in the room has been transphobic/homophobic/ misogynistic/racist/etc, call it out.

FOR PAPER TEAMS: If you debate on paper, I have certain requirements, these are not optional. 1) You cannot use a laptop in other speeches. A paper 1AC and a digital every other speech is needless gatekeeping of information. 2) You MUST have a copy of the aff for the neg AND the judge, they must have access to this at the START of the 1AC.

I consider violation of these an ethics violation, I will auto downvote you for it. If there are unique circumstances, talk to me.

DISCLOSURE RULES: Disclosure is REQUIRED unless the aff is breaking new (aka this is the first time running this aff). If you refuse to disclose, I will ask if you are breaking new. If you are not, I will require that you disclose.

On to the actual paradigm lol

I was a very tech-y debater, so if something's not covered on here, assume I have a really tech opinion. I am tech over truth.

Topicality:

-I ADORE a good T debate.

- Standards like limits, ground, and brightline are where the bulk of the T debate should be.

-I default to competing interpretations. It's really hard to convince me to vote on reasonability but I can do it if it's well-done.

-Having good interp cards is not as important to me as the impact your interp has on the topic/debatespace.

-TVA's are great, but you don't need them to win a T debate with me.

-Squirrely T definitions are fine with me. Just run them well.

-You don't really need to explain to me why education and fairness are impacts, but DO explain how limits and ground shape them.

Disadvantages:

-I really dislike DA's that have no internal link chain or one that makes no sense.

-I will accept generic links, but some analytic explanation of how they link to this specific case (esp if the Aff calls you on it) is good.

Kritiks:

-I. LOVE. K'S. I ran the Cap K all the time, I love them!

-That being said, I don't know a ton of deep deep K literature. I am fine with the basics. Anything else I'll need some explanation for.

-Links of omission/masking links are NOT LINKS.

-Language and reps links are great, love em.

-Use whatever framework you want, just justify it.

Counterplans:

-I'll allow pics and plan-plus cp's IF the neg explains them, why they're competitive, etc. You'll have to do a LOT of work to convince me to vote for these. Affs are very welcome to run a million theory violations on you for it, though.

-Consult cp's are absolutely cheating though. I'll vote these down if the Aff calls it out for being cheaty.

-You need a net-benefit (internal is ok if explained) and to be mutually-exclusive, as per usual.

Case Debate:

-Affs, if you lose the case debate, you lose the round. If the 2AC doesn't extend case, and the neg mentions it, I'm putting Neg on the ballot immediately. Same with any case turn.

-I will not grant the 1AR any new arguments. You get what the 2AC says, nothing else (unless the neg reads something new in the block).

K Affs:

-I'm okay with y'all reading them, as long as you a) explain them to me, and b) run them well.

-T USFG vs K Affs is always fun to watch. I find that T-Framework is the easiest way for the neg to win against a K Aff.

-K v K debates need explanation: I find that these debates often go so high into k theoryland that I just kinda sit there not understanding a thing.

Miscellaneous Stuff:

-JUDGE. INSTRUCTION. GIVE IT TO ME. I WILL NOT give you conceded arguments unless you point them out. On that note, I hate judge intervention and will avoid doing so if possible.

-Extension = extending the claim + author/date. I am very strict on this - shadowextensions do not count, I will not flow them.

-Ask me questions before and after rounds! I love answering questions, please come ask me! If you disagree with one of my decisions, come ask me why I voted the way I did (respectfully, of course).

-Barry 17

-Lighthearted banter and jokes between teams is a-ok with me

-If you need bathroom break or a breather if you're super anxious, let me know and go ahead.

-I don’t care if you eat/drink in round, just don’t be disruptive.

-I consider more than 7 off a jerk move and abusive. You're giving the 2AC a minute per offcase. Don't push it. Neg, you should be able to win a round with as little as 1 off or just case - running 7 off shows me that your strategy is "I hope we send the aff into a panic and exploit it" - that makes the debate worse for everyone.

-Have fun, do your best, and don't run Heidegger.

Good luck :D!

Speak clear and loud I have hearings aids but they don’t always work well.

I have experience doing extemporaneous speaking but that was many years ago.

I value professionalism and ethos, it’s hard to tell if your argument is good if you don’t explain it well and you sound un confident .

I’m very lay and my flow looks like class notes so even if you win the flow I won’t know unless I’m clearly told and given why it matters.

Recommendations for you from my grandson,

• Don’t harp on the same thing during CX your goal is to build arguments during that time.

• Connect your arguments to real world events, what your opponents said, and how it affects the world.

• Eye connect please look my grandpa in the eye.