Debated 4 years at Lansing

Graduated 2018

email: dev.csnova@gmail.com please add me to the chain

general

make multiple args cohesive and don't try to spread someone out - condo is fine but reading 7 off just to do it without any intention of going for half of them is probably bad for debate

speed is fine

t

love a good t debate

if you read it, it should be relevant and reading it as a time skew isn't enjoyable

love standards debate and think impact calc it incredibly important in the 2nr/2ar, usually run into problems of teams having a violation but no further explanation

cp

process cp's need to explain why theyre competitive with the aff, if they're mutually exclusive they're fine

i'll listen to theory and love it - generally think its underutilized

k

most experience with security and neolib, but i'm open to anything

specific links are good and links of omission are probably not links

do impact calc in the 2nr/2ar and on the aff - dont forget you have an aff and do impact calc weighing the aff

k affs are fine and on this topic are interesting but should be in the direction of the topic

da

not much to say except specific links are good

not a fan of 2 card disads

I'll send you a SpeechDrop link.

Experience

Rounds judged on this topic: 0
Disregard any topic specific info throughout my paradigm, it refers to a past topic.

Rounds judged on 2020-21 topic: 1
- Washburn Rural

Debated at Lansing High School in KS for 4 years
Debated 1 year at KU
Senior at University of Kansas
Assistant Coach for Lansing High School for ~3 years

General—

I’m a few years removed from debating now, so I'm not as fast at flowing as I used to be. You can read fast on cards, but I’d recommend you go at a moderate pace for tags/cites and theory arguments. Moreover, it would be advisable for you to explain your framing for the round a bit more than you normally would; odds are, you don’t want me trying to unravel the round for you, especially since I’m not particularly familiar with the literature on this topic.

If I feel that a team is intentionally personally attacking the other team (e.g. sexism, racism, repeatedly shouting at the other team, generally making the space feel unwelcome or unsafe for anyone else, etc.), I will drastically dock your speaker points on the first offense. If such behavior continues, I will vote you down. If you choose to continue to the point where the other team is visibly uncomfortable and/or upset, you will lose the round, get 0 speaker points, and I will find your coach. I would hope that no one reading this would act in such a fashion, but I want to be upfront about how seriously I take this issue.

If you’re going too fast or you’re unclear, I’ll say “clear” raise my hand on the zoom call.

Don’t be too rude, I’m not afraid to dock speaker points. I get that sometimes it’s unavoidable.

Generally tech over truth.

Read what you’re good at and explain why you should win. If you do that better than the other team, you’ll win the round.

Specifics—

Case

Extend your entire internal link story, not just your impacts. Explain the specifics of your solvency mechanism -- there are so many different ones on this topic, and I don't want to misinterpret your aff.

DAs

Are pretty dang terrible on this topic. Give me lots of impact calc and turns case. Since most of the DAs on this topic have the same or similar impacts as the aff, explain why I should prefer one internal link chain over the other. I don’t just only want to hear about the impacts in the 2NR - that leads to messy debates that are very difficult to adjudicate.

CPs

Read whatever CPs you want. I don’t care if they are completely cheating, if the aff doesn’t make a theory arg, I’m not gonna intervene. That being said, I have a pretty low threshold to reject the arg on “that CP is cheating”. Especially on this topic, I tend to err against process counter plans.

If you're gonna make a judge kick arg, make it in the block or in CX if the aff asks. Aff teams - ask this in CX of the 1NC.

Ks

You need to prove a link to the aff or their reps/epistemology. Explain what your alt does and give a clear framing as to how I should evaluate the K vs the aff. I'll vote on floating PICs, but make it clear that you're running one. I am most comfortable with neolib/cap, security, and some subset of anti-blackness Ks, but generally assume that you need to explain your warrants more than you normally would.

K Affs

Justify why you don’t have to defend the topic or a plan text. I probably err toward framework. I’m not your ideal judge if you don’t read a plan. I'm a little unsure as to why, perhaps neg teams being poor at framework debates, but I disproportionately vote for affs that don't read a plan. I'm a lot more likely to vote for affs with arguments about exclusion to weigh against framework than things like Baudrillard.

T

I’ll vote on in round and/or potential abuse. I'm pretty persuaded by predictable limits args on this topic since it seems like there are no real limits on the topic. Give TVAs and caselists. Go slower on T - my flowing is a little rusty and the internet will eat some of your words.

Theory

I’m probably not gonna vote on theory unless you're weighing it against T. In that case, explain how your theory args interact with the impacts of T, otherwise I'll end up having to make potentially arbitrary decisions when writing a ballot. I will reject an alt/CP/perm etc. based on theory if you're winning it and evaluate the round as such.

Ask specific questions pre-round or email me at zachatkins21@gmail.com

I operate under the mindset that the Aff and Neg have defined roles within CX Debate. The aff needs to propose a substantive change to the status quo that is germane to the resolution. The neg needs to argue for a retention of the status quo - either through that status quo being good or less harmful.

I am a judge that does not generally like K. I believe that CX Debate operates within a defined set of rules and boundaries, and that Ks refusal to work within that set of rules and guidelines fundamentally harms the structure and fairness of the debate. If you are going to run a K, please attempt to link it to the case.

That is not to say that I am wanting conservative HITS style arguments. Make it unique and interesting! Not a fan of Topicality arguments, so maybe best to avoid those as well.

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

25 years head debate coach; 4 yrs Policy/Congress/IE competitor + 1 yr NDT/CEDA

Policy: Default to standard impact calculus; ideal round would involve a single topical policy proposal from the aff vs. a single alternative policy proposal from the neg. if you want me evaluating non-plan arguments I need to be given a well-explained reason why that's a better use of my ballot than the endorsement of a good policy option. Most of the time tech > truth. If you make the round a toxic environment for me or for your opponents I may intervene to vote against you. That is NOT an invitation for you to complain in your speeches about your opponents' behavior. It is a warning that I don't like bullies, blowhards, and people who treat the activity as an arena in which to Get Their Alpha On, or as a stick with which to clobber their cultural/political outgroup of choice. I am capable of speed up to the level of a moderate KS varsity round or slow circuit round; I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

LD: I'm not what you'd call prog. The wording of the resolution, and specifically the evaluative term, dictates my judging philosophy--basically, you win by engaging the resolution as written and proving your side is true. Many recent LD topics have been phrased as straight-up policy topics--if you can convince me that the resolution you're debating is one of those, then the full range of policy strategies become legit. For more traditionally worded resolutions, I am far more likely to be persuaded by whole-res justifications as opposed to situational ones. If you win the V/C debate, all aff and neg impacts are filtered through your V/C, so spending time there can be strategically useful. I'm persuadable on util good/bad, and generally persuadable on theory, provided your "theory" argument doesn't render the resolution undebatable or absurd. I have not yet heard a LD round that was too fast for me, but bear in mind I am a middle-aged man who judges at the regional level; I am not at the cutting edge of this activity. I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

Congress: redundant debate is bad. Direct responses to preceding speakers are good. Unkindness to other competitors is very very bad indeed. Skilled POs tend to place very high in my rankings.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

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.

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.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

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 am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. 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 and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.