Hello! My name is Carley, and my pronouns are she/they. I did debate for 2 years and forensics for 4.

I am closely aligned with Tabula Rasa judges, but I would say I am very laid back and will judge based on how well you can convince me of your arguments. Line by line in rebuttals is very important so I can follow your arguments. Do not make the debate boring. If you read the evidence and do line by line without any sense of emotion, I will not process the information you give me.

BE EXPRESSIVE!!

As a forensics kid, I love speaker skills, but I won't judge the whole round based on that. If I cannot understand you, however, I will most likely vote for the other team. (Pretty please don't spread, thank you!) I do not want to have to read your evidence word for word. I would rather be able to comprehend by just listening. I also love storytelling, if you can paint me a detailed picture of what voting for you would mean, I would love that. I love thought out debate's where each team has something valuable to say, I prefer no K's, but I won't not vote for you if you do one. Tell me why I should vote for you and make it abundantly clear what team you want to win.

Also, I am a little bit of a geek, so here are the things you could reference or quote to make me smile and have an advantage on the win: Taylor Swift, Doctor Who, Once Upon A Time, Good Omens, The Little Mermaid, Back To The Future, anything about pirates, The Giver, Heartstopper, etc. Take your pick :)

Any pop culture reference you could make would not go unappreciated. Please have fun with it! Make pop culture references that you enjoy as well!!

The Most Important Thing I Will Vote On: I will not tolerate any sort of discrimination against me, your opponents or partner. If you are rude during round, I will reach out to you and your coach to talk about it, and I will not vote for you. Remember, your opponents are people too, you are not enemies.

I'm so excited to judge you, and I wish everyone good luck!!

As a policy debate judge, my highest priority is stock issues. They are vital for the affirmative. If any one of Harms, Inherency, A Topical Plan, or Solvency are not there, then I will not vote for the affirmative. I want to be clear that I consider each stock issue to rely on the one before it. I consider advantages to stem from solvency as well. Please arrange your case accordingly.

Regarding Topicality, I prefer to see debates focus that focus more on interpretation and standards than on voters. I always consider topicality to be a voting issue.

I do welcome squirrel cases, but I like to see an affirmative topicality justification in the 1AC.

Please keep speed within reason. If you are reading cards faster than I can get them on the flow, then I will miss them and disregard them. I would much rather see a team speak clearly than quickly.

Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

David Freeland

No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:

Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.

Debate-specific paradigm:

Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.

-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.

-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.

-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.

-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.

-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.

-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.

-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.

-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.

-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.

-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.

Policy Debate Wichita East 1993-1997

Policy Debate Wichita State 1997-2000

Head Coach Wichita Heights 2002-2005

Head Coach Andover High School 2005-Present

I have judged many debate rounds over the years and honestly I am open to just about any style. I hesitate to call myself tabula rosa as I lean more towards policy maker, but have voted for K's on many occasions. If you are going to run a K, just make sure that you have a good explanation of how it works in the context of the debate. I do think that topicality is important and will absolutely vote on it if it's won in the debate. I am fine with generic positions, DA, CP, or K.

Speed - I don't see has many fast rounds as I used to, but I am generally fine with rapid delivery as long as you are clear. I would like to be on the email chain or in the evidence drop.

Things to avoid in the debate - One major pet peeve of mine is teams who overly use "cut the card here." I understand doing this a time or two during a speech, but if you are doing this for every card, this is a problem. I believe that this one of the key reasons clipping is such a problem.

If your opponent takes time to tell you their pronouns, I expect you to use them.

Feel free to ask many any specific questions that you have. Good luck!

I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at aREASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!

Also...CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! AndEXPLAINyour cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">

Likewise,Give. Me. Roadmaps.I want to knowWHEREyou're going with the arguments, andSIGNPOSTwhen you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me knowWHEREyour argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.

In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. Anddefinitelydon't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, youdon't need to wait until rebuttalsto start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!

Finally, I want the debate round to beFUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. My default is Policy Maker. I am fine with speed if you are very clear, but be prepared for me to not flow nearly as details because I'm gonna be focused on actually absorbing your arguments.

K:

These are fine, but you better know how to run it well and not just use it to waste your opponents' time and kick out in the end.

Framework/T:

If you run T (which I highly encourage), make it good! It is everything in a round and, yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it. Same goes for Framework for the most part.

DAs:

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know there are alt causes and I can't ignore that.

Counterplans:

Can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Plan:

As a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.). The later into the season we get, the more I expect you to have answers to basic questions and not punt to the "my partner will bring that up in the next speech."

CX:
Yes, I will flow your answers and, yes, your answers matter. The point of CX is "clarification" and I consider it binding in the round. If you provide an answer in CX and contradict it in the next speech, I weigh this against your evidence/plan. You are the advocate for your plan, using the evidence you have gathered as a means to support your ideas. If you aren't consistent in your idea or advocacy, it undermines my confidence in the plan itself.

"It's Against the Rules of Debate":

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate and forensics coach since 2004 and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 3 years running.

Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.

7 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.

https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/elliott/2012/Student_Organizations/Debate_home.php

Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.

Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.

email: Kaydperd@gmail.com

Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Coached at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I am new to this topic so please explain all acronyms and topic-specific language!!

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Curtis Shephard - cshephard@usd266.com for chains please

I debated for four years in high school, and four years in college. That said, I am 45 now with 2 kids and a mortgage.

Upfront:

Not the judge you want for planless affs.

Be nice. If you can be nice AND funny, that's speaker points.

Won't vote on out-of-round indicts on your opponent's character.

Debate is a game.

Neg gets some condo, but not an infinite amount.

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.

If you plan on using an E-mail chain please include the following email: jack.turec@gmail.com or jacktureconw@gmail.com

Hello. My name is Jonathan Turec, and I use They/them pronouns. I debated for three years at Olathe Northwest High School and am now doing debate at the University of Kansas.

Novice: The things I want to see in a novice debate are teams who are invested in and understand the debate and don't just mindlessly read off your documents. I need to be able to understand what you are saying in your speeches so please speak up and annunciate. I do factor in your behavior in round as well as the arguments you present. If you act rudely towards your opponent or your partner you will be much more likely to lose that round, so please be cordial. Furthermore, any racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic arguments or behavior presented will result in the debater getting the bottom speaker position and very likely result in that team losing the round.

Plan: You need to have clear and easy-to-understand plaintexts to let me follow the debate and allow a fair debate for the Neg. I would prefer not to have an entire debate just on the wording of the plan as that will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. If you fail to read your plan in the 1AC I have nothing to judge the Aff case off of and will award the round to the Neg.

CX: During cross-examination, I want both the questioner and recipient to remain polite and cordial in your CX while attempting not to speak over one another. While I am fine with open CX, you should allow those who are meant to be speaking to have the majority of time in the CX.

Topicality: While I enjoy T arguments, you need to provide good reasoning for your T and make sure it makes sense. If you decide to run topicality on a case that is very clearly topical the affirmative team will have the upper hand in the debate. Overall I like T debate but make sure your T isn't too out there.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan you need to show both how the affirmative team is wrong in enacting their plan and how your plan solves the affirmative team's impacts/advantages better. I usually enjoy counter-plan debates and will take the CP into heavy consideration when deciding the round. When it comes to perms you need to explain to me why you are perming and how perming solves the CP's issues. It would help if you also showed how perming is possible with both the Aff Plan and Neg CP.

K: It is essential that if you decide to run a K you understand the arguments and reasoning in the kritik, if on the Neg you run a Cap K or some other K and don't understand the basic reasoning and arguments of it then the Aff will get the upper hand in the round. Furthermore, you need to explicitly show how your K links to the Aff case, if you don't then it won't be considered in my RFD.

Overall the debate round will hopefully go smoothly. There should be no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try to give as much feedback as possible on my ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round so I can explain parts in depth for you.

I only do online ballots so if you want to check results or feedback check tabroom after your rounds.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!