I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 12 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

Debated 4 years in HS (grad 2015) and I've judged occasionally since then but no rounds this season. I'm a policy maker, please don't read any critical stuff (if you HAVE to then do some extra work explaining in the overview and underview). I like rounds that have lots of actual clash on the arguments, so engage with what the other team says rather than just repeating your arguments. I am not super in practice flowing so you probably want to slow down a bit. I love good clash on T, but slow it down a bit so I can flow it. Ask questions before the round if you want to know more.

Policy Maker Paradigm that also takes T into account. Small town KS former debater and coach, neg arguments I like are DA, CP, T, and solvency. I'll follow anything on the aff side, but if you have a Kritikal Aff you better know how to run it. I expect Impact Calc at the end of the round to pick up the win.

I will fairly evaluate every argument in the round, but I will disregard theory, K, and T arguments if you don't know how to run them.

I look for well articulated arguments and a demonstration of understanding. Anyone can get up and read evidence, so show me that you understand how that evidence proves the point you are trying to make. I prefer good analysis of a few arguments rather than a large array of arguments. (Don't spread!)

Not everything leads to war.

Be nice to each other.

Stephen Duarte

I am a first year debate coach and I did debate in high school.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically put me into 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 despise debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact, and I've seen some, supposedly, very "good" teams do that very thing.

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 don't get to 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 really 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...

I will sometimes ask for a flash of the 1AC and 1NC after the speeches to fill in my flow. I only do this if I need it because I missed things. It does frustrate me when debaters assume that I can’t take speed because of how long I’ve been in the activity.

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 minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. To quote paraphrase a friend, I'll use my "educator pen" to help teach professionalism.

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not 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/Flash time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that flashing 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 flash 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- Like I said, I'm a policy maker. 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 implications 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.

Topicality: I will vote on T, I don’t think the 2NR has to go all in 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.

Kritiks: Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team. I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Clearly outline arguments

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

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

The TL;DR version of my paradigm: Much like in life, in debate, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. I default to policy maker. Make my job easier, and I'm more likely to vote for you.

General judging stuff: No handshakes please, germs are icky. Introducing yourself is fine and appreciated though. My concentration face is apparently very close to my angry face so please don't freak out if I look mad, I'm hopefully just concentrating hard. I'm not huge on oral kritiks outside of world schools debate, so unless there's something I think is absolutely necessary to discuss, I'm probably not going to for the sake of keeping the tournament running fast.

Semi-retired assistant coach for Hutch, been doing this forever. I'm pretty out of the loop this year due to lots of factors, I've only watched a handful of rounds this season, so please don't expect me to know everything about everything on this topic, making assumptions is probably going to make me grumpy. Seriously. Rank me above a lay judge, but I'm not as hip and with it as I used to be.

Delivery stuff: Rate of speed preferred is Moderate. I don't need you to be so slow like you're talking to Grandma Ethel, but I really don't enjoy fast debates and don't have the energy for it. Rule of thumb: if you're gasping for air like a fish with asthma, you're going too fast. I need to be able to understand the words you're saying, and things like tags and cites are extremely important to make sure that they are clearly said. If I can't understand, I don't flow. I won't interrupt the round, but it will be painfully obvious if I'm not flowing. 1AR I have a little more sympathy towards rate of delivery, but it still needs to be understandable. Also, everyone needs to signpost arguments so I know where we're at on the flow, PLEASE.

When paneled with one or more lay judges, my paradigm should be treated like a lay judge. I believe in making debate accessible to all backgrounds and experience levels, and making less experienced judges feel intimidated or confused by the activity is bad for everyone, so when choosing your strategy, don't throw away the lay judge unless you're also throwing away my ballot.

Also! Roadmaps! I would like one, please, because I don't typically ask for a flash of your speech. Your roadmap should be a sentence, not a paragraph. "T, Federalism, Advantage 2" is a roadmap. "First, I'm going to start off attacking Topicality. Then, I will read a disadvantage on blahblahblah..." is a speech. I'll start the timer if your roadmap turns into a speech. Did I mention how I also love debaters who signpost?

Timing: PLEASE time your speeches. I'm usually running a timer or stopwatch but it may not always sound when you've hit the time limit so it would be super if you're responsible about that. Yes, you can use your phone as a timer if it's on airplane mode, if the tournament and your opponents are fine with it.

Arguments:

Affs: Affs should defend the resolution and be topical. Not a fan of performance/k affs. I'll listen but you're probably not getting my ballot. Please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, don't read me something you pulled directly from OpenEvidence with little to no modification, don't be that team.

On case/stock issues: I feel like too often, negative teams get too wrapped up in the off that the on case gets ignored and we're having generic boring arguments. I enjoy case debate, but there needs to be impacts in round by the negative, so don't expect me to vote neg because you focused on inherency and solvency the entire round with no case turns or any reason other than you attacked their stock issues and the table analogy.

T: I love good topicality arguments and some level of topicality theory. T ran for the sake of running T make me sad. If you understand topicality and have good interpretations that are more than fill in the blank on the shell, I will happily vote on topicality and will do so plenty of times this year.

DAs: The more specific the link, the better, but I also understand the nature of the topic means that there may not be specific links- so give me analysis to show why they apply. Meh on terminal impact scenarios.

Kritiks: Please don't, unless there is actual, legitimate in round abuse/impact that you can prove. Someone unapologetically using _____-ist language and you arguing why that's bad in the framework of the K and the real, actual impacts, and using understandable language is going to be more compelling than you reading "capitalism bad" without really understanding it. The amount of analysis and explanation that is given to me in rounds has never been enough for me to feel like I can understand your points. Generic link kritiks that implicate the topic or large areas and can be run in like, 99% of your rounds are not the kinds of arguments I am going to vote on. That being said, if your coach is okay with it and you want to concede the round to the other team to pursue your K position in your side's first speech and have a discussion about your position, I'm willing to sit and listen/participate in the discussion for a reasonable (45 minutes-1hr) amount of time.

Counterplans: CPs need to have a competitive purpose in round and have more to them than just a pointless timesuck. I'm okay with them, just expect me to be real grumpy if you're reading states CP with generic links you pulled off OpenEvidence. These days I'm neutral about condo/uncondo, but I'll listen to/vote on aff theory on conditionality if they run it. In general, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Generic spec arguments: ew.

Impacts: Everyone needs to emphasize them and everyone needs to have them. Without impacts, I have no reason to vote for you. Mehhhhh to terminal impact scenarios, rounds where I'm forced to vote based on body counts are lame. I see a lot a bad rounds where I have to default aff because the negative fails to have any substantial reason to not vote for plan. Also your rebuttals really really need impact calc.

Theory: I can enjoy a little bit of theory if it's well thought out and doesn't dominate the round.

And finally, don't be a jerk. It really upsets me and makes me try to find any reason to vote against you even if you're the best debater ever. There's no place for racism/sexism/ableism/all those other -isms in this activity.

Feel free to ask me specific questions if you have them, and good luck to all!

I debated 4 years at Hutchinson High School and debated for a little bit in college at KCKCC 14-15; Currently assistant coaching for the 5th year.

Background: I ran exclusively policy arguments during high school, in college then I switched the arguments about identity, non traditional ("performance" if you want to call it that), I.E- Latina knowledge production, queerness,and womanism. I am familiar with lots of different arguments from all sides of the spectrum so feel free to run what you will in front of me I will listen to anything- Do you.. Like I said I've done debate on the policy and critical sides of the spectrum.

Yes! I want to be on the email chain: hhsjuarez14@gmail.com

T: As far as topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate?? That seems like a pretty steep punishment. Give a reason and not just a generic basic reason prove to me that there's a real impact in the round

I expect you to make comparative impact claims, Don't just do a small extensions of cards and think that's good enough b/c more than likely it's not good enough to a/t the argument. I expect you to explain what your evidence (assuming you choose to read evidence/ if not explain why your argument is important to the debate.) and most importantly I want you to tell me what matters in the debate and what I should vote on or frame the debate on how the debate should be judged on.

Link work in general: if you have bad link stories- It will be hard for you to win the round, you will have to put in work on why your link matters and why it should be weighed in the debate but at the end of the day I like/ look for good link cards in the round.

CP: I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence are bad and while and if you want to win on it you'll have to do more than just read your blocks.

DA: In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important weigh it out and remember good link cards

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Things you should know/ if you care:

Speed: I'm okay with speed just be clear or I'll yell out clear.

I will vote you down on speaks if you are blatantly offensive/ Rude for no reason I don't want to see/ hear it.

I like hearing historical examples are great ways to contextualize your arguments and show off your intelligence, it will impress me and help me get on board with your argument. Let me see what you know!

Arguments I don't like/want to hear is racism good/ not real, rape good, etc. Just being honest. It will also largely implicate your speaker points.

If you have any questions just ask me!

I did four years of 4A debate, and three years of mixed styles of collegiate debate (NPDA, IPDA, NFALD). We did fast debate, we did not do speed. I understand the difference. However, flashing me speech docs/email chains and being clear about when you switch cards has made my adaptation to you easier. I also understand that I'm not the target DCI/speed/critical judge, so I'm fine with being sped away from rounds if it's a strategic decision; I do my best to keep up, and I haven't squirreled because I've missed something yet.

I'm fine with all argument styles, there isn't anything I reject at face value argument-wise. I'll always give more weight to specific link analysis, especially if this is continuously pulled through with analysis through the debate. I'm also a big fan of impact framing and actually comparing the impact framing of the aff/neg as an additional lens to impact calculus. Putting lots on the flow is good, working the flow to your advantage is much better. However, I'm also very likely to vote on how you treat your opponents in round. For example, if you read a 15 card block to why I shouldn't care about trigger warning args, but ask the team "So, how triggered are you really?" in CX, I'll vote you down if the opp team makes it a voter.

I work for Pfizer. I do have a bias to not buy medicine/science DA's that aren't really rooted in science. Also, if you make claims like "AlL BiG PhArMa BaD" without any nuance or warrant, I probably won't be very happy. Sorry, they pay my bills.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

Email: kumk5835@gmail.com

I would call myself tab but there is no such thing as tab and everyone who says so is a liar, they're all offense/defense judges because there is no such thing as a blank state everyone has their preconceptions about policy already.

Mine are as follows:

T is incredibly important and I will pull the trigger on this arg as long as you A. win your standards, B. explain the internal to your voter, C. win that your voters outweigh, and D. do the work on reasonability. In terms of voters I definitely lean towards fairness, I'm still willing to vote on education but if thats you all-in in the 2ar/2nr be warned. For me to vote on reasonability you probably have to win race to the bottom, and you have to have a pretty solid we meet. I evaluate reasonability like a perm. Ask if this is unclear in any way.

Das are cool, most of them are bullshit and if you're just shotgunning args onto the flow to outspread people, you have to do the work and if I dont understand your I/L story I'm not going to vote here if they have any decent ink on the flow. I also believe in terminal link deficits, meaning I dont care if they concede 8 extinction impacts if they can realistically prove that there just isn't a probable link. 1% risk is pretty bad for debate tbh.

K's are awesome, I love cap and state an bio-politics, I have a pretty solid grasp on most k lit present on the high school circuit, but if you're doing something wacky, just be clear why im voting for the alternative. Ex: if you read an unintelligibility alt, and don't say its an unintelligibility alt, you just are unintelligible, I'm not going to vote for you.

"pre/post fiat": Stolen from my homie Kenton Fox: I think the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" misconceptualize the function of an alt. Explain the alt as a methodology that can resolve the links and impacts of the k/1AC instead (this in no way means you shouldn't make in-round claims. Example - if you're reading psychoanalysis most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon the ballot, whereas if you're reading histomat most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon plan action proper. Most of the time when you talk about the "post-fiat" level of the alt you're just describing the world of the alt, which should be accessible (at some level) through the judges endorsement of the alternative

Perf con: I prefer the term ped con or pedagogical contradiction but w/e idc. I will vote on perf con if the alt is epistemic or pedagogical analysis. I believe these alts are best as 1-off or at least with DA's that are not morally contradictory. If you read a "counter-reformist reform" (silly term) 1ac with a indicts of the negs DA impacts, the DA doesn't even necessarily have to be morally contradictory at its core as long as you win the indicts. This does not mean I will always vote on perf con dont assume that you don't have to do the work.

K affs are fine, just have a warrant why its ok to be non-topical in the 1ac and you should still be tangentially connected to the topic. If you arent that cool but you're going to have to do a lot more work on the framework page or I'll just vote neg on fairness.

FW is just a way to evaluate the structure of debate, including the pedagogical and epistemic benefits of the activity. Framing is how the judge should evaluate impacts. This distinction will just make my flow clearer, and make it a lot easier for you to extend your framing/FW as my RFD in the 2ar/2nr.

Condo. I will vote on it if you win the standards/voters debate. I will not vote on one or two conditional advocacies, but past that you hit the point I'm willing to pull the trigger. Multi-plank CP's where each plank is condo is incredibly abusive and I will vote on this near 100% of the time as long as you do the work. I dont like these dont read them please.

CPs are fine, just not delay or multi-plank.

Disclosure: I hate this arg. Im liable to just toss it out because large schools with access to resources benefit the absolute most from things like wiki disclosure, and if you're a small school having disclosure read against you I will vote on an RVI; call it hacking, I don't care.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

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

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

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

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

K

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

CPs

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

DAs

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

Condo

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

T

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

Theory (General)

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

CX

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

Speed

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

Experience:

4 Years of High School Debate

Judge at numerous invitational & state tournaments

Preferences:

I consider myself a judge who both values communication and resolution skills during a round. In other words, carry yourself and communicate in an effective way, but also talk about pressing and important issues during the round.

I am more of a tabula rasa judge meaning I will adapt my perspective varying on the round.

I discourage fast, speed talking during the round. Please talk and communicate in way that is understandable and poised. I also prefer when you take time to summarize the argument rather than leaving that up to the judge to do.

Topicality and disadvantages are fine during the round. Counterplans are acceptable as long as they are relevant and explained well. Please refrain from kritiks.

Please be kind and respectable to each other during the round!

Eight years as a competitor, four of those as an assistant coach, second year as a head coach at Emporia HS, KS.

Topicality - Not my fav argument but I'll vote for it. PLEASE focus on standards and voters. Do not just argue definitions without standards the entire time - I probably won't vote on it. Prove you win your standards and voters AND that they are better than the other team's. Don't just run T on any case...

Disadvantages - Make sure you do strong impact calculus.

Kritik - Run whatever, Theory is cool if you know how to run it well. Not a fan of vague alt, I'd listen to theory on it.

Counterplans - Focus on net benefit, that's about it. I like CP's and I'm not super picky. Theory is cool if you know how to run it well.

Speed - I don't really care, but if the other team can't follow, slow down for them. It makes for a better debate if your opponent can understand you. If I'm not on the SpeechDrop, give me a little signposting to help me out.

Flowing - Do it. :)

I usually will just conform to whatever you want me to vote for in the round. Just be kind to each other and have a good debate.

Almost every round I judge is lost on two things:

1) The team doesn't flow and loses a debate they should win but they drop things without realizing it.

2) The team does not clearly show where they are at on the flow, so I'm forced to guess/search for the argument on the flow that they are attacking/answering. Be clear in your signposting throughout the speech (I often call it they say/we say on my team but your team may call it something else) and I will be able to flow well and judge well for you!

I would appreciate being on the email chain/Speechdrop. My email is adam.moore@usd253.net

jimmieleenorman@yahoo.com - add me to the email chain

I did policy debate and forensics for most of high school at Newton High.

What I value most about debate is that it provides an open space for debaters to develop and test ideas.

There is some wisdom to the cliché of asking debaters to ‘write my ballot for me’. Since I think debate belongs to the debaters, I appreciate when a debater can tell me not just how a card relates to an argument but how the argument relates to the debate and the ballot as a whole. It is hard to evaluate a debate where both sides are winning something and no one compares the importance of those two things. If you do that comparison, you’ll definitely make it easier for me to be on your side of the issue.

I try not to arbitrarily reward or punish debaters for running specific arguments. If a disad is weak or if a counterplan is illegitimate, it is the job of the debaters to prove it and forward that argument. I try not to ‘lean’ on one side of an issue or the other, deferring instead to the analysis made.

On the issue of paperless debate, I do not believe flashing/emailing speeches counts as prep – within reason. If the amount of time it is taking you to flash speeches gets excessive I will change this policy.

Clarity > Speed

Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate.

Being disrespectful is a one-way ticket to my bad side. BE GOOD HUMANS.

Policymaker paradigm. Counterplans are acceptable. Never vote on kritiks, rarely vote on topicality arguments. Sportsmanship during the debate is important for speaker points.

I want students to know that speed speaking is not something I am interested in hearing. Delivery style is going to be a significant part of my judging. Be memorable, persuasive, and effective. I don't get upset for people going to slowly, but it is frustrating for people going to quickly.

Big believer in strict analysis of evidence. Big believer in rigorous proof of claims as a way to limit topic area. So intelligent T debates, prima facie minimal standards--all good. Very interested in source arguments, as they tend to limit the wackiness of kritiks. So if you have an actual grasp of the critical thought involved, use it. Big believer in the old stock issues as minimal requirements for Aff victory. Really dislike grandiose disads with weak links, brinks, etc. Reasonably fast flow, but don't let that be a license for poor quality argument. Greatly dislike rudeness, snottiness between teams. Teams that do not understand their own arguments, evidence, or how the world generally works are at a disadvantage vis a vis those who do. Watch me for non-verbs. I enjoy easy-outs, so I have less to follow and write on ballots, so if you can claim a solid win before the round is done, I'm with you. Teams I admire have strategic minds, are able to take an aerial view of the round, do not become too detached from reality. That said, an uncontested decision-rule will still work. What I dislike and what I will vote on are not mutually exclusive. I may give you the win for something I detest, but I'll be unhappy about it. That should only affect you if you see me again and fail to heed whatever advice I offered on the ballot.

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.

In the late 90's - early 2000's, I debated 4 years (then assistant coached 3 years) @ Hutch High, and coached 1 year at @ Hays High. I have judged a handful of times since then.

I have very few predispositions re: what a good debate should look like, but you should justify your approach with well warranted arguments. CP's and K's are fine. Assume just about everything is debatable.

Please do not cover your face with your laptop. It blocks your voice and makes it harder to hear you.

Please, for the love of God, the 1NC should label/name each off-case, then everyone should call it the SAME THING in other speeches. Otherwise with several off-case and everyone calling each one something different, it can be hard to follow.

I was introduced to "speech docs" and "e-mail chains" last year -- I will not engage in an e-mail chain or look at your speech doc. I'm flowing from your audible speech.

Line-by-line debate where you signpost what you're answering is important to me. For example, if you group all of the 2AC's answers to T or your DA in one big overview, and then read a bunch of cards and do nothing else, it is likely that it will appear that you conceded some/all of their arguments.

If you want me to flow it, be clear that you're going on to read another tag line or make a separate argument. If it sounds like your tagline is just part of the last card you read, and I only knew it was a new card because I heard an author's name... then I didn't flow it.

If you can hard number your arguments (e.g. saying "1"... "2"... "3"... in between cards/arguments) then you'll be much easier to flow, and have a good reference for everyone later when extending / answering / going line-by-line. At the very least, take a second to briefly pause and say "Next" between arguments so I know you're making a new argument that you want me to flow.

When jumping from one off-case to another one, give me 2 seconds to finish flowing the last thing you said.

Explain your evidence; I will not read it after the round unless it's to quickly verify a competing truth claim about what was read.

The 2NR and 2AR should aim to "write the ballot" (RFD) for me; "even if" statements will go a long way for you.

Please use jamielwelch95@gmail.com for any email chains.

I have not been involved with debate or argument design for a little over a year. I judge occasionally but that is about it. Please don't assume I know the ins and outs of your arguments. You should take from this that a little more explanation is needed for me.

Soft left affs: If your answer to disads is “but the framing page!” you will get very bad speaks and most likely lose. If you use your framing page and then also make specific arguments against the disad then you are in a better spot. Framing pages encourage lazy debating. Don’t be a lazy debater.

Theory – Conditionality is good. Lean neg on basically all theory.

Ks – I don't care which K you read, it can be whatever you are comfortable with. I don’t think the alt has to solve anything. Winning links to the plan is best but if you win a link to other things the aff has done and it has an impact then I will vote on it.

FW/T – Fairness is an impact. Limits matter. That doesn’t mean because you don’t read a plan I won’t vote for you but rather what it means to be topical is up for debate. Without a solid interp of what “your model of debate” would look like I am less likely to vote on your impact turns. Give judge direction on evaluating your arguments versus things like topical version, switch side, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.