KSHSAA 6A State Speech and Drama Champs
2025 — Olathe, KS/US
6A State Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFine with most arguments. K's are fine, just make sure to explain them.
I dislike dropped arguments. If you intentionally drop an argument. Mention it.
I default to Stock Issues, Aff must win all Arguments to win.
Not the fastest at flowing so i prefer no spreading. that said you can still speak quickly but i have to have enough time to write it down
Any other clarifications or questions you have you can ask me before the round but I am generally pretty cool w/ whatever.
Flay judge
\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.
I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.
Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.
I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.
How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.
I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.
On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.
Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.
I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.
Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).
I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.
As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.
If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.
Experience: Head coach for 9 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.
Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence, BUT I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with especially when it comes to analysis of evidence.
Framework for Evaluating Rounds: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how you would like me to weigh the round. As long as the the framework is real world and not too abstract, I will consider it in my decision.
Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.
Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence and/or read blocks. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.
Hannah Erdman, Wichita East High School Head Speech and Debate Coach
Previous Experience: Assistant Coach for Eisenhower High School, HS Policy Debate, HS Forensics Kid, Kansas State University Policy Debate
- Include me on email chains (both emails):
herdman@usd259.net
erdman.hannah@gmail.com
- Spread is fine. Just slow down on taglines and make sure you signpost. Ask your opponent's preference for spread to keep the debate fair and equitable.
- Tech > Truth, but don't be surprised if I leave some feedback that you have some very obviously glaring falsities in your argument, but overall, I value the structure of the round and will honor the arguments actually made.
- If you don't flow, I'm not flowing. I tend to vote on the flow in a policy maker style.
- Don't pull new in the 2-- I find it cheating.
Novices: Honestly, I really just value that you are in a round and getting it done. Make what arguments you feel comfortable making and do what makes you feel most comfortable. I will help where I can, and I will have patience and grace as long as it does not interfere with fairness and the structure of the tournament. Please know that I give a lot of feedback, so even if I am not looking at you and I am typing, it is because I am writing with the intent that you get better based off of my notes. In addition to that, a lot of novices and competitors have commented that I look like an intimidating, angry judge. I promise I am incredibly kind and personable-- my face is just like that. :) Practice professionalism and kindness as a novice, and you will go far in my book. However, debate is still argumentation, so make sure you give me that clash! Spice it up with some good analytics-- don't just read cards. I really don't like to see framework, theory, and K run in novice, but if you do it, know it through and through. Have fun!
-JV/Open:You are on your way to Varsity! Keep up the good work, here's what I expect out of JV/Open: Trust in your arguments and follow through with them. I am not a huge fan of seeing K, Framework, and High Theory in JV. More K can come through in Open.
Disadvantages: Always a great strat, but I'm not a huge fan of generic disadvantages. You should have a really strong internal link and cards that aren't contradictory, easily turned, or land in a thumper argument. You're here to have fun, and I love to see that, so go for the existential impacts and make it good. I will also deeply appreciate some solid philosophical debate on ethical impacts and the subsequent Impact Calculus.
Topicality: Lowkey, I kind of hate topicality arguments, but I'll listen to them. Just make sure it's not a throwaway argument for you. Many times when I see T run in JV and Open, it's dropped or conceded by the end of the constructives. If you also try to argue fariness and vagueness, then you pull out 3 specific DA's? I really hope the Affirmative catches you on that. Really believe in T and don't use it as a filler argument ("10 off, starting with 5 T" is really a pet peeve of mine.)
Counterplans: Unironically, I do kind of love counterplans, especially ones that challenge the structure of the round and of the affirmative plan. On the flipside, make sure the perm isn't lazy-- really give it some work and push back on it. The only thing I ask for counterplans is that you make it pretty obvious that it's a counterplan and not just some randomly mis-labeled argument that looks like you pulled it from a random file. You're open and JV, you should know what you've got going.
- Varsity: Go crazy in varsity-- you got here, let it all out and have the fun you deserve. The only thing I ask is that you don't get too aggressive in the round. I'm fine with about every argument in varsity: DA, Topicality, CP, K, High Theory, Framework, etc. I am also fine with spread, but please check in with your partner and slow on taglines so I know where you are at in the document. See my comments in JV/Open about DA, T, and CP.
Kritik: I generally love K because I think it adds a certain angle to the debate that you do not see in other rounds. Varsity is a place to experiment and have fun, but even in performatives, K Affs, and other strats, make sure there's at least a thread that links back to the topic. It's hard to prep for otherwise, especially if you're not disclosing earlier than 30 minutes before the round (Debate Wiki).
High Theory: I was in college around the time that high theory became pretty prevalent in debate. As someone that likes to challenge norms and values in a round, I want to see some high theory and rules arguments including some potential negotiation and debate over the definitions/limitations of current rules. I also kind of love some meme debate in varsity, because it keeps it fresh and fun without becoming a verbally violent policy fight.
Framework: Listen, I'm generally acting as a policy maker, but if you want to try to run some paradigm shift and re-define how I vote for the round, that's cool. I like seeing the creative ways in which debaters want to frame the round. It allows for some mental gymnastics that are ultimately good for the soul.
- Any other questions, comments, or argument clarifications can be emailed to me at least 30 minutes before round begins or asked at the top of round.
Hello there! I have the privilege of serving as your judge. I hope you'll find the information below useful.
Experience: I debated for four years in high school and currently serve as the assistant debate coach for Olathe West.
What I look for in the round: Since every debate round is so different in terms of argumentative focus, I appreciate it when teams specifically tell me what I should be voting for/on. For me, the best rebuttals, regardless of the level of debate, are the ones that include specific appeals to the judge to vote a certain way.
Speed preference: I'm okay with speed as long as you are clear. I need to be able to get taglines, authors, and dates down on my flow.
Topicality: If you feel there's a pretty serious violation that is preventing you from creating adequate clash, run it.
DAs: With solid analysis, disadvantages are great.
CPs: If it's consistent with the negative strategy, go for it.
Kritiks/theory: If you run a Kritik, you better know what you are talking about. Please don't run one if you are simply just trying to throw off the other team. Moreover, if you choose to make a critical argument, please make it worth everyone's time. I tend to find debates that are dominated by abstraction and epistemology unsatisfying, especially when I get the feeling that there's little substance behind the convoluted language. That said, I can appreciate a Kritik if it highlights a flawed assumption that is specific to the language and logic of the Aff case. Specific links will go a long way with me.
Decorum: Be kind and respectful to your opponents and judges. The people that are involved in this activity do it because they enjoy it. Please don't kill that enjoyment by being rude or unkind during a round.
Misc: Debate to your strengths. The best rounds involve great clash and top-tier strategy. If you need to ignore parts of my paradigm in order to make that happen, please, be my guest.
Lastly, clarity is huge to me. Explain your evidence; explain what your argument is; explain what arguments you are countering; and explain what I, as the judge, should consider when formulating my decision.
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.
ONW debate 2020 - 2022 -> KU Debate 2022 - Current
She/They
T/L: I am good with any argument. Just don't be problematic and/or rude
K Teams: On the affirmative we run a K aff and I have ran a soft left aff in the past, on the negative I primary run set col but am familiar with other Ks. Fw is pretty important and explaining the role of the ballot / role of the judge. Its good to explain why your model of debate is better than the one they are proposing.
Policy teams: I am not that familiar with pics, you can still run them but I will be learning during the round. If the purpose of aff / neg isn't laid out I default to "Does the aff make the world better than the squo?". I don't usually vote for condo unless there is clear in round abuse and its the majority of the 2ar. If there are dropped args you don't have to take a long time extending them, just 10 quick seconds to say something like "they dropped x... conceded, flows to us" and if it matters for other arguments go more into that then.
Don't be mean to your partner, good luck <3
I can flow
Shawn Lawson
lawsondb8@gmail.com (Add me to the email chain)
he/they
Former Olathe East Debater (2020 - 2023)
Olathe West Assistant Coach (2023 -)
Attending KU, not debating and don't plan to.
"One always has exaggerated ideas about what one doesn't know." - Albert Camus, The Stranger
I used to try to have as short a paradigm as possible, but kept adding to it over time so I've decided on a more comprehensive approach. I'll probably change it again in a year or two to make it disgustingly long, and might even add more soppy philosophical quotes.
Top Level
- The easiest way to my ballot is clear extensions throughout the debate and rebuttals that have clear impact calc and ballot framing. If you make it easy to vote for you then I probably will. If you're unsure what a good extension looks like check out Kevin Krouse's paradigm - I have a similar threshold for extensions and they are really important to my ballot. Every time that I've made a decision and not been 100% confident in it, it is because neither team had clear extensions.
- Tech > truth unless you're being discriminatory. - Just call me judge unless there's a panel and you're calling me out specifically (which is cool and you should do if you feel it's necessary).
- No handshakes. - Don't just read backfiles at me - especially by the rebuttals you should have less blocks and more clash.
- Don't be any of the -ists in round, don't clip. If you do I will give you the lowest speaks I can and you will lose.
- Additionally, I will under no circumstances vote for a team that uses AI to write their speeches - you will get the lowest speaks I can and I will report this to your coach. I didn't think this required saying but somebody has managed to prove me wrong. Write your own arguments, I'm not here to judge how good of a debater ChatGPT is.
- Give a roadmap and signpost please. Also, don't just respond to their arguments sequentially since I don't usually flow speeches straight down but instead put cards or analytics next to what they respond to - so I don't know what you're talking about when you say you're answering "their fourth argument".
- I will not vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the round, i.e. somebody saying something problematic online or alleged actions. While oftentimes the matters discussed in these arguments is very serious, I do not feel like denying somebody a ballot does anything meaningful to resolve issues. I'm here to judge whether or not the arguments I'm presented with are good - not whether or not the people in the room are good people. If it's a serious issue, please contact the tournament director.
Speed
- Generally fine with spreading, but if I clear you and you don't slow down you will not be getting good speaks and I probably won't vote for you since I can't follow your arguments.
Argument Preferences
- Tabula rasa, run whatever you want with very few exceptions. Want to read death good? Go ahead and do it, unless it's a panel and another one of the judges says not to in their paradigm, in which case I will not evaluate those arguments (though I do request that you give a content warning).
- For context I was a K debater, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm familiar with your literature and it doesn't mean that I'll do the work for you. If it helps you to know this, I'm a philosophy and political science major so I am more likely to know arguments in this area, but this shouldn't have much of an impact on what arguments you do or don't run in front of me.
- Running identity arguments without being a part of that identity group usually just seems like cooption to me. That doesn't mean you explicitly can't run these arguments against me, I'm just very unlikely to vote for you if the other team calls you out for coopting an identity group you don't belong to.
- I'd say that I'm definitely a good judge for Ks of any kind. In fact, my favorite rounds are usually K v K, though if done poorly it's my least favorite type of round. Regardless of how well you run the K, I'll probably at least have good feedback for you even if I'm frustrated - so if you feel like trying something new you may as well.
- I generally think perfcon is bad but can definitely be persuaded otherwise. Generally perfcon gets a lot harder if there's a K involved though, so my threshold for voting for you if you run something like a Cap K and Econ DA is pretty high.
- Not a fan of excessive numbers of offcase positions, especially when it's clear that there is no situation in which you'd go for half of them. If you run more than 5 off I could definitely be persuaded that new arguments in the 1AR are fine.
- There is always a win condition. No matter how behind you think you are, you should still try since the results may surprise you.
Prep
- I am not timing your prep. That being said, you should time your prep and probably also the other team's. If you suspect that they are stealing prep let me know, since I'm honestly probably going to be on my phone rotting my brain with reels during prep.
- You don't need to take prep to send a doc, but if you take too long to send a doc I will tell you to hurry up. If you are still taking a long time after I've warned you once, I will make you take prep. Unfortunately these tournaments are on a tight timeframe and it is important to respect others' time. - DO NOT STEAL PREP. If the other team is sending out a doc that does NOT mean you get free prep. If I catch you stealing prep (even if it was just a few seconds) I will cap your speaks at 25. If I catch you stealing prep repeatedly I will not vote for you.
- I advise that you use all of your prep, if you lose the round but still have some prep left over then I won't have too much sympathy.
Speaks
- DCI and TOC circuit will start out as a 27.5, which I view as an average score. Anything lower than that is below what I expect at this level, anything higher than that means you were doing at least something good. Above a 29 means that I was impressed, and I'm not in the habit of giving 30s unless I think you should easily win the tournament.
- For novice speaks are more simple - it's on a 1-4 scale so just be better than the other debaters in the round.
- Here's a couple guidelines on what I think a good speaker looks like:
- Effectively utilizes your full speech time. This does not mean to needlessly repeat yourself or stretch out your arguments, but to add as much nuance to your points as possible.
- Speaks very clearly, easy to flow. - Doesn't just read from a computer, makes solid eye contact. - Giving rebuttals without a computer, especially ending rebuttals (not at all necessary, but I'd recommend trying it sometime. The best rebuttals I've seen didn't involve a computer).
- Being funny; this could just be being friendly with the team before and during the round but is also good if you make jokes during your speeches. To the misfortune of everyone around me I find brainrot really funny so if you're as unfunny as me you'll probably do well.
- Strong yet respectful cross x, especially if you tie strong cross moments into your later speeches. This doesn't mean be aggressive, if I think you are being too aggressive then you will not be getting good speaks regardless of how well you run your arguments.
- Don't let you or your partner be dominant in every single cross x. If that happens then at least one of you will get low speaks. If you are speaking over your partner constantly then neither of you will get good speaks.
- Effective usage of prep, see above for more info.
- If you mention any reality TV show (preferably Dance Moms) during your speech then I will give you .1 speaker point. I think it's funny to make people do that and also proves that you at least glanced at my paradigm so it's vaguely justifiable.
Good luck, have fun!
-Shawn
-
Hi! My name is Bri :). My pronouns are she/her.
My email in case of questions or email chain: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com
Do not see my policy background and assume you can win my ballot in LD AND PF by running a policy arg.
Quick Bio:
I competed at Westmoore High School for four years, where I was a four-time national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD and PF, as well as both the trad and circuit debates. I also currently coach multiple events, including all the debate events and some specific IE events. { I beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once Iykyk}. I am currently on the OU policy debate team, and I coach basically all the debate events.
- ASK ME ABT COLLEGE DEBATE-
TLDR: General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.
2. In your last rebuttal speech, you should crystallize and summarize your best arguments. Going for everything is not the strat I would recommend.
3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate If you don't do it or are just avoiding it, then the round is probably boring, and I will be doing my crossword while flowing. JK, but please make the arguments interact with each other.
4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't - tbh probably will not flow the argument because I will not know where it goes.
5. Yall - I will not evaluate drops or call out your opponent unless you do it first.
Trad LD - for Oklahoma and trad debate circuits If you compete on the TOC/Progressive tournament in LD you can ignore this part.
1. Framework is pretty important to me, especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.
2. Mostly for OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common here, I'm fine with speed and counter plans. All I ask is that if you're going to do it, please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan do not sneak it in as a contention. I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain, but I WILL not read the doc or evidence unless you tell me too.
- OK debate and mostly KS - honestly, since this is a trad circuit, I would avoid running k's theory or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond, and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here. It will not help you win a round, and although I do policy, I debated on this circuit, so I know what goes on. If you're going to try to run something funky because you think I'll evaluate it. I won't, but you can try. Typically, there is no point in running arguments that your opponents can not respond to correctly. It is not fair to try and win a round by debating over your opponent's head and calling drops.
3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you instead of a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops, especially if your opponents do not address your entire case.
4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly. I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments. I will assume you stole it off the wiki and will probably be annoyed.
5. Non-OK debate AKA prog LD- my honest opinions, this is just shorter policy debate, but that does not mean you need to treat it as so. As neg, Running uncompetitive CP and DA and throwing ten of them on the flow is probably pointless if you are not going to go for them. Either tell me why I am voting for you, and outline the FW and impact debate, so I do not have to do it myself. As aff, the four minute time skew sucks really push on the neg what on wether they are kicking out of stuff and what. Call them out on the absurdity of running 10 off and collapse down. Figure out what you know you will be when on, and cross apply that to the neg arguments.
PFD
1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time. Use it wisely!
2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster. Please be civil and nice. This is not the crossfire to bring up new arguments, just clarify the ones you have made. Also, it is too late in the round to ask about cards if it was not brought up before.
3. Make sure to carry your arguments through the final focus; if they are not carried through, I won't use them in my decision.
4. Public Forum Debate is called a Public Forum for a reason; it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible. There shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Adapt to your judges, I will follow it, but be careful and adapt to everyone. I really do not vote off fw more impacts and how your Impacts solve your FW. Take that as you will, but if you make fw your entire voter explain why I am weighing or prefer your FW.
5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence. You will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them. This should not even be something I have to say, but I coach teams and cut evidence for them, so there is a very good chance I know what your cards say.
6. Make sure you have been well-versed in the lit and case you're reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better. That is just advice for the future.
7.Address everything on the flow. That is how you get my ballot.
POLICY
- CX open cross fine
- Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm -
1. Policy- and K debate - Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. On that, I am a K and policy debater, so I am fine with either. If the K, however, needs to prove how the Aff advantages are harmful to the world of the K, so Neg, when attacking a policy aff along with reading a bunch of offenses etc explains how their Econ adv leads to native harm etc you will get my ballot a lot better that way because the sides interact more. Please, please do not just read random cards - I do not want to hear five econ bad cards instead, I would prefer hearing analytics and clash of evidence that is specific.
Make my voters clear in the last speech - impact clac it out and clearly explain how the team can not perm or how the alt has no solvency, etc.
2. I'm fine with theory (it is secretly my fav part of debate).However, not everything is untopical - pick your battles. Make your violations clear
3. I will vote off anything tho, lowkey as long as you make it clear why and how arguments interact and clash and why I'm voting for u
4. Things I do not like - Tricks - ugh plz, don’t, but if you have to, it's fine. Judge kicks - this is super confusing to me, so I think that it does put me in a super confusing position.
5. Make my role in the round clear, and tell me to read cards if they are important etc
EMAIL CHAIN: katie.mcgaughey@usd497.org
ABOUT ME: I did not participate in the activity in high school or college. However, I have judged several policy rounds and speech events in the last 6 years. I have judged everything from local Kansas City tournaments to NSDA Nationals in 2020, 2023, and again in 2024 as well as Speech Events like NIETOC in 2024. I have a Bachelor's degree from University of Kansas in Exercise Kinesiology & Physiology and in Psychology with an emphasis in Cross-Cultural Communication, and I am currently working on a Masters of Science in Data Analytics at Northwest Missouri State University. I work as a Sales Rep at Macmillan Learning where I sell online courseware to community colleges and universities in Kansas and western Missouri, and also serve as an Assistant Debate & Forensics coach at Lawrence Free State High School. Sko' Birds!
APPROACH: 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. Anybody can read cards, good analysis, and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable. I am a big fan of Ethos and persuasiveness and I think that this may be somewhat of a lost art with many debaters just spreading through prewritten blocks as fast they can in their rebuttals. In my opinion a slow, technical, and logical rebuttal is almost always better than a fast rebuttal that does not have the same level of tech and logic.
SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative. Also, spend time on why each card matters to the case, the status quo, and your argument. I don't care about the author's background so don't spend valuable time on it.
POLICY ARGUMENTS: These are the things that I will be the most comfortable evaluating. Case debate, DAs, and smart CPs that are all supported by quality evidence and analytics that reflect your knowledge of the topic will be rewarded. Generating clash through warrant comparison and setting up the end of the round through comparative impact calculus are critical for shaping my ballot. Probability and timeframe are the most important parts of impact calculus to me, and time spent explaining (or breaking down) internal link chains is never wasted.
KRITIKS: I'm willing to listen, but you should deploy them at your own risk. Don't assume that I know your literature base or am well-versed in the way that your offense interacts with theirs. Narrative explanation and easy-to-follow structure will be important for me to effectively interact with your arguments. Link articulation is particularly important in this vein; having all of the offense in the world doesn't matter if I don't know how or why it's relevant in the round.
The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and tell me how to vote and why. It is more important to be right than to be the most clever. I want to see that you have a nuanced global knowledge of the topic, not just reading cards that were cut for you. I am open to answering questions about my style of judging before the round, and always feel free to email me post-round with any questions.
If email chain: lmichaelDB8@gmail.com
Washburn Rural Highschool '20 (China, education, immigration, arms sales)
Washburn University '24 (NFA-LD) (immigration, forever wars, campaign reform, nukes)
Assistant coach at Washburn Rural Highschool and Washburn University (AI topic)
Hello! My paradigm is a living document as I realize that I actually do have opinions about debate that change every once in a while
I spent most of my debates going for theory, Das and impact turns. Most of how I view debate is informed through an NFA-LD perspective as that is what I dedicated most of my debate career to learning. That being said, most of my opinions about arguments are the same in policy because while the format is different structurally, arguments are largely the same. I can give you advice on how to weigh your impacts against your opponents but, I’m not really sure what the perfect 2nr looks like.
I have an APD which makes it extremely hard for me to understand people who yell while they spread. I know there isn’t really a bright line on that but, if you think this might be you then I would err on the side of yelling less so I’m able to understand you and I will clear you if it’s an issue. I would also really appreciate it if for tags and analytics you slowed down by like 50% so that I can get a clear understanding of the thesis of your arguments before hearing the warrants because sentence fragments without contexts are incomprehensible.
Please don’t say my name in your speeches.
General Views
Tech > Truth
It’s more important to me that you debate how you want to rather that over adapt to my preferences and debate poorly
An extension of an argument is not “they dropped this card”. I need you to extend warrants and for you to extend every part of an argument you’re going for (Uq, Link, I/L, Impact etc.). I want to be able to follow your logic chain.
I am not in a position to judge the character of people in the early stages of their lives, I will not vote on anything that asks me to do such.
Be nice to your opponents. This is a fun game that we play with our friends on weekends, it’s likely not that deep.
Paraphrasing is not evidence. I will evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics
Please collapse unless you have a good strategic reason to not.
I care about impact and warrant comparison a lot.
I won’t disregard an argument as new unless someone points it out. The exception is the final rebuttal of the debate
I like to see that you’re having fun debating. I am more receptive to arguments that others would label “troll”. I read my fair share of wipeout and “frivolous” SPEC shells just because I thought they were interesting because debate is a games are supposed to be fun.
The rest is… debatable
T/Theory
I think that theory arguments should have an interp, a violation, standards and voters. In NFA these should be in the speech the theory is read and I’m not sure what the norms are in policy, so I’ll adapt to you. What these things look like is up for interpretation.
I think most interps are arbitrary and self-serving, convince my yours is the least and is good for debate.
Reasonability is a question of if your interp creates a reasonably debatable topic not that I, the judge, should look at the aff and determine if it’s reasonably topical
DAs
I like Das that have links that are specific to the aff function. Topic DA vs biggest aff on topic is a fun and valuable debate to participate in.
CPs
I don’t think I’ve been in enough process counterplan debates to think they are evil yet but, I’ve heard the arguments for why they are and can be convinced so in a debate.
I generally think that condo is good and necessary to improve critical thinking skills. In LD condo becomes less good and necessary because of one sided time constraints but nobody really abuses this and I’m not really sure why.
Ks on neg
I understand the thesis of most common Ks (Cap, Set Col, Security, psychoanalysis etc) but outside of that my knowledge is quite limited. I will for sure vote for other Ks but only if you make it so I understand it by the end of the debate. I would err on the side of over explaining your links, impact(s) and how your alt functions. I also, generally, believe that aff teams should be able to weigh the aff. Otherwise, why are we here.
Ks on the aff
I’m probably not great for you. I find topicality/fwk with a good limits/clash standards very persuasive. This does not mean that I will not vote for you but, you must be exceptional at answering T.
Everything is an impact if it’s framed that way
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.
First, I identify as He/Him. Somehow, TABROOM has defaulted me to She/Her.
I have gone through many iterations of what I thought my paradigm should look like. As I’ve gotten older, I realize that I am probably a mix of several guiding ideas. In the end it comes down to the choices made in round as to what to go for and what was ignored. The majority of my background as a coach and mentor has been in the policy maker realm. It’s the easiest to debate and makes the most sense. However, I do enjoy a good round of debate about debate as long as it doesn’t devolve into “my coach says…” or things along that line. If you want to go technical, you MUST have evidence to back up your claims. I will not listen to or give credit for arguments that only have wild claims and no authoritative evidence to support what you have said. Don’t mistake this for a games player ideology. I’m not about to let you just do whatever you think is funny and clever if it is a waste of time and makes everyone in the round less intelligent (kind of like this years topic). So if you are looking for a clearly defined statement or description about how I process debates, there really isn’t one. But I can answer typical questions that are often asked before rounds.
speed—don’t do it. I have t heard a round at speed for over 7 years. I’m not used to it and you will more than likely lose b/c I can’t process your info and the other team although not as thorough with their coverage might end up winning.
topicality— you bet! A good t-debate is fun for me.
K’s— I am not up to date on the lit so I wouldn’t recommend going that route either.
Generic DA’s— I’ll listen. Make sure your links are solid. I’ve been known to vote on link turns…
on time road maps….ugh, get used to them. They are a thing at state. So, please do it for me and yourself.
Open C-X—NO. I don’t like when partners make tools out of their partners. You read it, you should be able to answer questions about it.
That should cover it. If you have a question that I have t covered, jus t ask.
Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.
EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.
My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com
About me (If you care)
Assistant Coach - Mill Valley
I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience, I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days, but I will see an LD or PF round every now and then.
General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.
2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.
3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.
4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.
5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.
6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.
Traditional LD/Kansas LD
Only Warning
I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I am not amused by making every event like policy; if I wanted that, I would go judge policy, and yes, there is a time and a place for a "progressive" style of LD, but your local circuit that barely does LD for half a semester isn't one of them.
General Things
1. Framework is SUPER IMPORTANT to me. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.
2. Please have consistent case content in relation to your framework. I can't begin to recount how many times I have heard someone read a Kant framework and then go on to read a bunch of Utilitarian arguments. If you do this, I might cry a little. :(
3. I typically enjoy moral-based argumentation that includes philosophy or some type of explanation for why an obligation exists. After all, most of the time, the resolution asks "ought" not "should." However, if you're going for strictly practical argumentation, it would be nice for you to still explain how stopping extinction is key for moral stability and how it links to your framework properly.
4. ANALYTICS ARE GOOD. I don't expect a 1AR to read many cards in a 4-minute rebuttal speech when they can't go fast. However, if your analysis is blippy analytics with bad or no warrants at all, it won't get you far with me.
5. Crystalize, Crystalize, Crystalize. In a 45-minute round where you only get 13 minutes of speech time, you need to tell me what the most important arguments are, why you won them, and how they fulfill the framework. Line by line is necessary, no doubt, but I need to know why your arguments matter and what they should mean for my ballot.
Extra Note: I will disclose if you ask and with the consent of both debaters. If you don't ask, I will assume that you don't want to know.
AGI Topic
Although I think the idea of this topic isn't a bad one, it is considerably less enjoyable than I thought it would be. AGI literature is so sparse and vague within itself that it's almost impossible even to begin to evaluate the debate. Every debate seems to go in a revolving door of what AGI even means, with that definition seemingly changing almost every round. Is it conscious? Is it “God”? Is it just intelligence put into a humanoid figure? Is it even an “upgrade” at all? All of these are things I have heard in rounds defining AGI. So when you have all those competing definitions of AGI, it either takes up the entirety of the debate clash to argue what AGI even is, or debaters are making arguments when they have very different definitions of AGI, so their arguments don't even begin to clash with one another, and then the debate becomes a mess. This is also from someone who has spent considerable time on this topic. I can only imagine the mess of a debate; this is to evaluate someone who hasn't spent time on this topic or even a lay judge. This is not even to mention that I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to be evaluating competing pieces of evidence on a hypothetical topic where the substance that we are debating doesn't even exist, there is no “truth” for me to lean on in this topic.
With all that being said, I made a list of 3 things you could do that would make evaluating the debate around a lot easier and probably get you a win.
Definition of AGI - I'm usually not a big fan of reading definitions unless absolutely necessary. But this feels an imperative to have in constructive it basically sets the groundwork for the whole debate and it clearly tells me what I'm supposed to be evaluating.
Good warrants for evidence comparison - You should probably have very good warrants for competing evidence claims If you put me in a position where I have to read cards about a specific issue pertaining to AGI at the end of the round and you haven't given me warrants for why your evidence is good or preferable to your opponents you're basically leaving yourself open to a 50/50 coin toss. Like I previously stated, the AGI hypothesis and research are all over the place. There is very little consensus on anything; thus, evaluating evidence is going to be difficult, so I need warrants for why your stuff is good.
Crystalize BETTER
For a 45-minute LD round, debaters on this topic are going for way too much offense in their final speeches, which is definitely contributing to a mess of a flow. You don't need to make it that difficult for yourself. Tell me why you're winning framework and what piece of offense you're winning that specifically links to your framework. Better yet, if you think you're losing framework, tell me why you linked into your opponent's framework and what piece of offense you're winning. Remember, evaluation starts at the top level on framework; whoever can generate the most offense through the winning framework will win the round. Usually, just one winning piece of offense is enough for that. The 1NR and 2AR should be concerned with extending their framework and winning offense. An extension of some defense is nice, but offense wins rounds.
PFD
1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.
2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem, specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get paraphrasing evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down.
3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystallize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.
Policy Debate
1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.
2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.
3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.
General Things
1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.
2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.
3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.
4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.
5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.
4 years policy in highschool
Not the best with crazy speed
Duo and POI enthusiast.
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.
I do not like spreading, unless you are articulate and easy to understand. Enunciate and clarify taglines and authors.
I do not like T or K as a general idea, but if you can give specific links and thoroughly explain how the case is a violation, try it.
I like good argument structure and organization. Speeches should be easy to flow and keep track of.
I like when you answer the arguments in the order it was presented originally-- signpost and roadmap.
I do not like racial/gender theory-- it doesn't matter if you can link it to the case, I think it fundamentally takes away from debate.
I really like good sportsmanship-- duh.
I do not like new arguments being made in the 2NC/2AC. If you are going to be making arguments they need to be brought up in your first constructive.
Signpost, Signpost, SIGNPOST!
Former debater in high school (Washburn Rural '04) and college (Emporia State '08)
Former Direct of Speech & Debate 2009-2024 (Hutchinson High, BV North, Free State)
*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com
tl;dr
I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.
-I do not know anything about this topic - not coaching, haven't done any research - adapt accordingly
-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.
-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus throughout the debate. Conducting impact calculus without talking about your opponent's impacts isn't impact calculus, in my opinion.
-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve the problem(s) you've isolated.
-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.
-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.
Some top level thoughts:
1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate your arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.
2) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.
Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always.; If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.
**Having zero topic knowledge makes T a double edged sword - I'm less likely to default to whatever the community consensus might be; but I'm also likely to be more difficult to persuade of arbitrary distinctions which would require me to have some understanding of aff and neg ground on the topic.
Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often. My recommendation would be for your side of the debate to avoid these pitfalls.
Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans. No topic knowledge probably makes permutations more compelling, but who knows.
Critical affs - I ran primarily K affs in college eons ago. I have coached teams who have read K affs. I have judged many debate rounds where K affs have been read. I think I'm pretty middle of the road and am around equally likely to vote for one or not. I am probably an easier sell on a carded or well explained Neg TVA on Framework than many other judges.
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!