I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)

I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.

I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.

Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.

Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.

inactive

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS

Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

Experience: Head coach for 8 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 analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

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. 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.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

My email is glanzman94@gmail.com ------please include me in the email chain if present. I do prefer speechdrop though.

Experience/Accolades:

NFA-LD National Champion (2016)

NPDA/NPTE Top 8 (2016)

CEDA Double Octo-Finalist (2014)

Coach in High School Policy for 6 years

Coach for NFA-LD for 2 years

***Updated for NFA 2022***

We are back in person!! I have attended two tournaments nationally to get back into the swing of in-person debate and I believe the differences I have seen warrants me making changes to my paradigm. For some students this may be your first in person experience debating (whether that be high school or college) and I need to make it clear that certain debate practices and models do not translate well to in-person debate and causes me headaches when evaluating a winner. So I will attempt to pinpoint things I find make it difficult to judge while also providing a view for how I engage with debates.

1. Run strategies you understand and are comfortable with---do not let your peers or coaches tell you otherwise. I’ve found it incredibly disheartening that every year I go into judging and students run K’s or soft left stuff in front of me because they believe that’s all I can evaluate. It’s not true. Yes I can provide better feedback with K’s compared to a politics DA but I also evaluate every debate through offense/defense and how to frame it. So please stop running things you can’t explain beyond the surface level just because you think I like it.

2. Debate is about clash, and clash is much more than just saying “they said x argument”. Seriously I’ve judged too many debates this year where teams are just missing the point of clash and it’s annoying. Remember, comparison is necessary. Comparison happens when you provide actual warrants for your argument and then contextualize it to the debate (which means your opponent’s arguments). This means tagline extensions are not enough. This means being more predictive rather than descriptive in context to arguments clashing. Things like how your alternative solves the impacts of the aff. Or how regional conflict supercharges famine. Or how winning the epistemology framing means that you internal link turn their warming scenario or whatever. Point is---compare and contrast! Don’t just do normal impact calc that’s self-referential. Ask yourself constantly “how does this happen”/”why does this matter” and make sure you answer it.

3. Overprepping is a real thing, and reading blocks as fast as you can isn’t debate. Like for real if you go into debates just reading pre-written analytics and cards only there is no reason for *you* to be present in the debate. If at the end of your speech you ask yourself “if somebody else read my document, would the debate change in any meaningful way?” and you conclude no; you have done yourself a disservice. I get it---prep is great. But overprepping or losing yourself in fast responses creates worse debate across the board. Mainly because clash isn’t very organic. Or in most cases you ignore important arguments on the flow because it didn’t make it into your blocks. Just please…generate analytics specific to this debate. Allocate time to prove you have generated thought into how you want to approach this debate.

4. Just because you read a piece of evidence does not mean I will extrapolate its warrants and apply it to the debate unless absolutely necessary. Debate is a competition between you and your opponents. I try not to interject as much as I possibly can and leave it up to what said in a debate to filter a decision. Even if your evidence has a round winning warrant---if you don’t explain and extend it, I won’t consider it. In really close rounds that reference pieces of evidence, this changes because I naturally have to look into it. But it’s not good enough to say “extend my Zizek evidence. Cold conceded” and move on then blow me up during the RFD saying “but Zizek said this line”. That’s cool, but you didn’t after the 1AC/1NC or whatever. This is why I prefer debaters who read *less* evidence after the 1AC/1NC and focus on just explaining and contextualizing what was in their original shells. Your shells should already contain 95 percent of what you need to win. Pre-emptions and all.

5. Stop assuming the way you view debate is the way I view debate. That’s the purpose of a paradigm right? You see what I’m weak at and how I evaluate arguments. I’ve noticed this year especially teams take certain endpoints for granted. Like why competitive equity/education matters. Or why stock issues are a voter. Or why economic collapse is bad. These re-address the point I made about by asking yourself “how did this happen/why does it matter?” I am flexible at how I should vote---y’all tell me how I should evaluate the round. But you gotta give me tangible reasons why your model is good and why not following it is bad. Don’t just assume.

6. I tend not to look at speakers when they are presenting, so if I do it probably means I am looking for you to explain further/contextualize. Pay attention to my body language. Especially coming off of two years judging online, I haven’t adapted too well to making my body language neutral. Either way, never was that kind of judge. I have certain ticks. Doesn’t mean that I hate what you’re saying necessarily---probably just means I’m looking for more or think you need to move on.

7. I err tech over truth, but capital T truth will be persuasive no matter what. That’s kind of the purpose of debate, yeah? Multiple sides to multiple arguments? Kinda hard to find objectivity behind all that subjectivity so it always benefits you to focus more on the internals of it. I will say though that the way that I flow and evaluate does tend to allow for more “embedded clash” than others. And what I mean by that is that certain debaters just have that gift for knowing what matters in a debate and what doesn’t. If the endpoint of an argument you make inherently clashes and out-warrants the endpoint of your opponent’s argument; it’s not necessary in certain cases to pinpoint it on the flow and flag it. Best piece of advice I’ve ever received---you’re never winning every argument. So focus on what would win you the ballot. Not just prove you’re better at arguing.

8. Presumption can be a round winner in front of me if packaged correctly. If you are winning credible defense and they just aren’t really touching on it by saying “that’s defense so who cares?” and they don’t actively explain their scenarios then yes presumption is p cool. I do expect affs and negs to adequately extend their advantages/shells even if they weren’t addressed. So just keep that in mind.

9. I am not very strong at counterplan debates, so be weary. Doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate the usual ones like agent CPs, etc. But process CPs tend to go over my head. Either way, 95 percent of the time CPs only matter because of the net benefit that is rarely internal but rather a DA that can stand on its own. You should naturally be winning the DA for the CP to matter. But that statement probably proves my conception of CP debate is bad. I love PICs though!

10. I love cheese. So anybody that brings me cheese, or cheese flavored snacks automatically gets a 29 worst case from me. Better snacks increase it. Or a drink to pair it with increase it.

So now to answer questions people like to ask:

1. Can I run a K aff? Yes. I would say that 3 out of my 4 years were me running K affs exclusively minus maybe 4 parli rounds and having to run a policy in front of NFA judges who I know can’t evaluate it well. Run it well and try to contextualize it to the neg as much as possible. Don’t get lost in blocks or generalities.

2. Do I have to have a plan? Nah. I’m not KU and saying “no plan no wins no speaks”. You don’t have to do anything in front of me to curry favor other than debate in a way strongest to you.

3. What about performance? Go for it. I did performance for 2 years of my career and had a lot of success with it. I naturally view every speech act as a performance so it’s not a thing for me to be weary about re-evaluating spaces/poetry/music/silence/narrative/whatever right? The debate is always yours in front of me. I’m just here to determine the ballot.

4. Will you vote on framework? Yes. So far voted more for it than against it. I think framework debaters tend to focus too much on prepped blocks though. Be more organic and really engage with the specifics of the 1AC/1NC instead of just generalizing it to “they say anti-blackness” or whatever. You should also be prioritizing the internal links of your framework shells. Things like clash, switch side, preparation, resolutional stasis, etc. only matter if you contextualize it to the specifics of the 1AC. Like it’s not just good enough to tell me why balanced clash is good. You have to not only justify why your model of debate is good, but preferable to the affs model.

5. Will you vote on T? Yes. It’s how I won NFA. And I actually think T can be read against policy affs. Even if there is some ground/offense baked into their relation to the topic (sorry Lincoln Garrett, your take was kinda silly lol). Point is, topic is important yeah? You can debate it isn’t important. And you can win that debate. But by default, I tend to believe the topic matters in some fashion. T debaters have a horrible tendency to focus on top level though compared to internals. This mirrors the framework arguments I painted above since T and Framework are essentially the same thing (yes they are, interpretations are models for how the community should engage a word/phrase. Framework just makes more meta arguments about the generalities of debate). Talk about specifics, not generalities. Be predictive about what they justify and how that worsens debate. And why that matters. Just please explain stuff…even if you win the interp and violation debate doesn’t mean it’s an automatic vote.

6. What about the K? Yeah run it if you actually know how to explain your arguments and use it strategically. Too many times I get students in front of me who get jazzed saying capitalism is bad and get caught up trying to correctly historicize China or Cuba because they know factoids compared to focusing on the strategy and overall purpose of the debate. K’s were my bread and butter and naturally I can provide the best feedback for it. But that is double-edged---it means I demand more from you in context to how you deploy and debate it. Also, very important note. Please explain your methodology instead of just saying cool leftist things. And I mean it. Your alternative evidence should be pointing out an actual method/praxis/starting point. Your alternative text should be written with meaning where every word is necessary. Too often students don’t really know what the alternative specifically means and just say things they’ve heard in other K rounds like “epistemic disobedience” or “guerilla tactics” or “flipping the script” without actually relating that back to the alternative evidence/text proper. Alternatives are varied and vast for a reason. Real differences between historical materialism and critical pedagogy on the *methodological* level. Point is---please explain your alt. Explain it correctly. Utilize it efficiently so that it solves the aff and your K proper.

7. How about impact turns? Yeah but obvi don’t read racism or patriarchy good. Not a fan of Malthus. De-dev is my jam. Wipeout is cool too.

8. Will you vote on theory? Yes, but just like the T and Framework stuff you need to explain the internals and impact theory out effectively. I don’t have any pre-disposition to any theory position that makes a certain side preferable to me than others. For instance on condo I honestly couldn’t care less because I think both sides have good reasons and am not a 50 year old coach who believes condo makes or breaks good debate. It’s up for debate!! Debate is up for debate!! And you win it by winning the debate!! What I will say is that I’d rather see 1-3 offcases with development out of the 1NC compared to 6-10 with little development. I enjoy more in depth debate but again I don’t intervene in this situation and it’s not gonna be persuasive for you to just say “hey you said you like depth!”.

Any other questions just ask. Happy debating!!

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:

Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.

Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail

Case/DA

Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.

Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.

CP

Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.

Topicality

Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.

Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.

Critical Affs

Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.

You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate

K

Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

Put me on the email chain please: lexi.ellis227@gmail.com

General Stuff:

-I will not evaluate arguments that are about something that happened outside of the debate round.

-unless otherwise argued, I default to judge kick is okay. If you want to get into specifics like cp planks, then I would prefer you make an argument about why judge kicking one part is okay.

-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic

-Impact out theory debates

~More specific arguments~

Kritiks:

-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.

-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.

Framework:

-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)

-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.

Topicality:

-Limits are universally good.

-You should slow down

-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

I debated for four years at Andover Central high school, four years at Wichita State University (career was 2010-2018) and am an assistant coaching for Derby high school. As a debater, I have gone for K and policy arguments both. I spent my first and fourth years in college debating mostly policy stuff but my 2nd and 3rd year debating mostly K stuff.

Email: dsaunders406@gmail.com

General things - Talk as fast as you feel comfortable, I will say ‘clear’ if I can't understand you. The less clear you are, the more difficult it is for me to hear the warrants of your evidence which means I will give it less relative weight as the debate proceeds.

I really appreciate it when teams will front load their arguments by putting neat labels at the front of the explanation. Also, I'm really bad at catching author names so try to extend your evidence with some reference to the tag or warrants. Having a last name doesn't hurt but isn't really necessary. I am annoyed when a rebuttal sound more like a bibliography than a persuasive speech.

I try to review the minimal amount of evidence necessary to make my decision and won't give much credibility to warrants within evidence that weren't also extended in the rebuttals. The gist of what I'm saying here is I'm more interested in what you have to say than what your cards have say.

Charts have gotten really big recently which is good but if you think your evidence is awesome because it has a lot of charts, you should be prepared to explain what they mean and why they are good. Just having a chart in a card is not necessarily self-explanatory. Just like you have to explain your cards, you should have to explain your charts.

I believe the minimal threshold for the extension of an argument is a claim and warrant. I don't care if you think your opponent dropped something, a blip of the tagline doesn't count as extending it.

My body language isn't a reliable indicator of how I feel about your argument.

Prep time - Cross-ex is three minutes long. As soon as the timer goes off, you're entitled to stop answering the question. Please be cooperative and courteous in cross-ex. I absolutely hate it when it takes a whole minute to answer a simple question because someone is trying to show off how cool they are. If a team wants to take prep to ask more questions, the other team isn't obligated to answer those questions but can if they want to. I may stop listening after the prep time starts though.

Disadvantages and counterplans - There isn't really much to be said here. DAs and CPs are an essential component of negative strategy. Counterplan theory stuff is below.

I believe that if the negative wins a conditionality argument, I have the option of judge kicking a counterplan even if the negative doesn't make an argument. The status quo is always an option.

Framework vs Critical affs - my personal preference is that the affirmative team reads a topical plan.

I think policy teams that treat framework like T and go almost exclusively for procedural fairness are making a strategic mistake. Even if you are right that framework makes the game work, you also gotta tell me why playing that game is good. My preference is that you just have a defense of why policy debate is good because it produces some skills/subjectivities/education/etc which outweigh k offense.

However, if you have a very strong topical version of the aff, I tend to me more inclined to the purely procedural fairness version. In all other cases, you are advised to go for some type of education offense.

When executing a topical version of the aff, it is the negative's burden to show how it resolves the aff's offense rather than the aff's burden to show it doesn't. Just like when the neg introduces a counterplan, they have to show how the counterplan resolves each of the aff's advantages. The neg block is advised to have a fairly lengthy discussion of the TVA where they discuss what parts of the 1ac and 2ac they resolve and why. People act like its game-over unless the 1AR has 5 or 6 good responses. T version will probably solve some of the aff's offense but it is not a round-winner by itself. You should generally focus more on winning your education offense outweighs their business.

Theory/T - I hold the team being accused of a theory violation to a higher standard than your average judge. I feel like too often teams get away with extremely lazy or non-sensical defenses of conditionality or pics or whatever. Topicality is a question of competing interpretations. Obviously people can make arguments about but I think every argument in favor of reasonability is incoherent and falls apart under the least amount of pressure. Don't tell me about whether potential or actual abuse really occurred or not. It's not very persuasive. The better strategy is to tell me why your interpretation is better. The absolute most important argument in topicality debates is proving your intepret limits outs a certain kind of aff and those affs are bad or includes a certain kind of aff and those affs are good. Everything else are pretty trivial. The magnitude of abuse needed to justify a ballot for theory is relative and not absolute. Those thoughts apply to both topicality and counterplan theory. All that said, you have to be very thorough when going for a theory argument. Simply saying 'delay counterplans are cheating because time skew' is not enough.

Kritiks - framework - The most important move you can make in a K debate is have a clearly defined, well-defended framework argument that tells me what we are doing when we are debating. Are we comparing policy actions or are we comparing sociological theories of violence or are we comparing the effectiveness of political performances? If both teams win that their thing should be included (i.e. we should weigh plans and ontologies) it often results in impossible comparisons. How do I compare the benefits of a plan to the benefits of an ontology? Personally, I don't think that can be done. You should make sure your framework describes some role for the other teams stuff but a role that that allows for comparisons. Simply put, a neg framework argument that just says I should include ontology in my decision is useless. A neg framework that says I should exclude considerations of the plan in favor of exclusive ontological analysis is preferable. I have seen a lot of talented K debaters loss in front of me because they had an incoherent or non-existent framework argument. Don't let it happen to you.

Literature - I read the cap K a lot and not much else.

Perm - It is the aff's burden to explain why the perm solves the links rather than the neg burden to explain why it doesn't. I don't mean to say that the neg doesn't have to answer perms. You obviously should. But if the 2ac only says "perm do both" and the 1ar repeats the phase, I think of that as the same as a claim without a warrant. A better approach is to say "the perm solves link #1 [blah blah blah], the perm solves link #2," etc. Meanwhile, the neg is best served by explaining why their links are resilient to the perm rather than reading a list of generic perm DAs.

Curtis Shephard

Email Chain - cshephard@usd266.com

I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality

It's all about the game and how you play it.
All about control and if you can take it.
All about your debt and if you can pay it.
It's all about pain and who's gonna make it.

You've got your rules and your religion
All designed to keep you safe
But when rules start getting broken
You start questioning your faith
I have a voice that is my savior
Hates to love and loves to hate
I have the voice that has the knowledge
And the power to rule your fate

Um, it's gon' be, what it's gon' be
Five pounds of courage buddy, base tan pants with a gold tee
Ugh, it's a war dance and victory step
Of all stances, a gift and you insist it's my rep

I am cold like December snow
I have carved out this soul made of stone
And I will drag you down and sell you out
Embraced by the darkness, I'm losing the light
Encircled by demons, I fight What have I become, now that I've betrayed
Everyone I've ever loved, I pushed them all away
And I have been a slave to the Judas in my mind
Is there something left for me to save
In the wreckage of my life, my life

The Dr. will see you now

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - 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. 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, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but 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.

4) 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. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) 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. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

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

10) 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.

11) 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.

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

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). 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 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.

Paradigm - Will Starks

I debated 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (Wichita, KS) in highschool and I debated American Parli at Washburn University and won NPDA, made second place at the national round robin, and finished 4th at NPtE.

Topicality/Framework:

If you can't defend your Aff against these two things that's bad. That's why I evaluate these arguments. However, if there's not an a priori voter on these two things that leaves the question of what should be evaluated first, which I will have to intervene for. Don't just say it's an a priori issue, either, though. If you do, and they do very good impact comparison, I will probably choose their impact comparison. Why are T and Framework a priori issues? If you have a warrant, I will evaluate it in its entirety. I don't completely sway toward Identity/K arguments though, so don't pretend Framework is a lost cause in front of me. I think there are very good arguments on both sides for prioritization, and it will be more meaningful if Framework is framed as a competing methodology. If you read Framework and tell me their aff is excluding you because they read a narrative I will not be very happy with you.

Debate Strategies

1. Straight Case: A very good strategy in my opinion since most teams aren't ready to defend their aff from 8 minutes of offense. My partner and I in college have won elim debates on this strategy and I am very confident in evaluating these debates.

2. DA/CP: The great Buzzsaw, I love it, just don't assume the CP solves the aff and garners the net benefit. A problem with a lot of these debates is the CP doesn't solve the aff and the debate devolves down to whether or not the Net Benefit is more desirable than the case advantages. Outside great impact comparison, usually the Aff wins these debates because they just have better offense to the status quo. Make the debate clean for me and explain to me the world of the CP and the world of the Aff.

3. Criticisms: are my favorite. I'm well read on a number of critical theories. Baudrillard is one of my favorite arguments, but I am also well read on D&G, Foucault (Biopower), Said (Orientalism), Wilderson, Butler, Fanon, Bell Hooks, Nietzsche, Marx, and Bataille. Although I have a diversity of knowledge about criticisms, you still need to debate your K well. I will know if you haven't read a book, and I can tell when you have a 'Frankenstein K' that is made up of multiple authors with an alternative that doesn't resolve the links. The problem with a lot of Kritik teams is that their Alternatives are not well written, and not thought about as much as they should be. I take hours to develop an Alternative text, but that may be because Parli Debate places a lot more importance on theoretical legitimacy and solvency.

4. Theory: is very strategic if used well. I don't really care if you use it as a time trade off, but I think the problem with people who do that is they'll kick a very legitimate theory position that they could win on. Just be strategic about it. Don't try to fall back on something you're more comfortable with extending in the rebuttals especially when the other team has a risk of winning on it.

AFFS

1. I like Identity Affs, especially performative ones. My partner and I have ran multiple Identity aff's including one with rap lyrics that we wrote specifically about debate. I honestly think if you have to justify your aff coming out of the 1 AC, that is unfair, considering policy teams don't have to justify theirs. But, it's good to pre-empt the usual framework/case strategy.

2. Policy affs - are fine and I like hegemony debates.

Pretty much everything.

non-black subjects shouldn’t read anti-blackness arguments unless done in good faith.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*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 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 (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-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.

-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 you 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) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) 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.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. 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.

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.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.

I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.

You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.

Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...

Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:

I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.

Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.

Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.

In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.

Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.

Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.

I recently graduated from Washburn University where I debated for 4 years in the parli and NFA LD circuit.

I have run pretty much some of everything, including K's. In parli I was primarily a K debater, but I also ran heavy Framework on the negative.

I can handle any speed. I don't have a type of argument that I like or dislike, I will listen to anything. I believe multiple worlds as long as you kick something in the end, I will vote for interps, such as multi-actor FIAT, if you tell me why, and I default competing interps in a theory debate if no one tells me how else to vote. Condo is good.

All that said, I feel that debate is a game and should be enjoyable, so don't be mean.

I won't fill in the blanks based on my own knowledge, so don't run a super vague link story on biopower or something and expect me to just link the aff for you. I will vote for an argument if you win it. I won't automatically vote you down for an argument, so feel free to run what you want.

Impact calc, I default probability if you don't tell me otherwise, but if you tell me how to frame the round, I'll go for that. On your theory page, give me warrants, don't just say "fairness and education," explain why fairness and education are actual voters.