Anna Correa (she/her)

Hi there!

I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1 year at Valley High School (2014-2018) and coached PF and some LD at Iowa City West last year (2018-2019).

In general:

- I'll vote for most arguments so long as it is supported and impacted appropriately. That being said, respect and human decency are important, so keep that in mind.

- Impacts are important. Your args and warrants mean nothing if you don't tell us why it matters or what it means for the way I'm supposed to vote.

- Debate is about debating, not listening to the sound of your own voice (that's for us coaches and judges to do lol). Regardless of your debate style or what kinds of args you're debating against, be sure to actually engage with your opponents. Don't talk over the substance of the round. Dig into the clash. We love to see it.

- Speak as quickly or slowly as you'd like. Whatever speed you choose, make sure you're speaking clearly. If asked to slow down, please do.

- I'm all about giving feedback and helping newer improve in their debating skill, so I'll give comments at the end of every round.

- If you have additional questions about my paradigm or after a round, please let me know!

LD

- I was mostly a phil framework debater, and I'm most familiar with that style/literature but will listen to anything. Whatever style you choose, tell me how to evaluate the round, whether a standard or ROB or otherwise. Make sure you explain all things clearly though because I won't use my own knowledge to fill in the gaps in your arguments.

- Go at whatever speed you want and can clearly speak. Slow down for important taglines or author names. I'll say clear or slow several times if necessary.

- Theory/T: slow down on interp language. tell me everything I need to know. Don't leave me to default on things like drop the arg vs debater, etc.

- All args you want to be evaluated should be brought up in each speech. Even if it's conceded, at least mention it in subsequent speeches, so I flow it through. I won't flow args that are new in the 2.

PF

- Persuasion is more important in PF than LD, but I'm still a flow-based judge. This means that args need to be pulled through the entirety of the round to be considered in my final decision.

- Non-empirical or "qualitative" args are totally fine, but you still need warrants of some sort and a reason it outweighs more easily quantified data.

- Crystallization and condensing in later speeches can be a smart strategy. Be intentional with the args you choose to spend time on as speeches get shorter.

- Weigh your args against your opponents' and impact your args to tell me why they matter. Tell me why your evidence and impacts mean you should win the round.

- I base PF speaks more on speaking style (but still strategy and overall approach) than I do for LD.

Policy

- I never debated policy but have judged some policy rounds at a state/regional level.

- Please include me on email chains, but keep in mind that this isn't a cure-all for my lack of policy experience.

- Don't assume I know anything about the topic or lit (because I probably don't).

- Be especially clear with T/theory interps, complex Ks, and CPs.

- I'll evaluate almost anything that is warranted, impacted, explained, and argued well.

- At the end of each speech, spend a few seconds summarizing your speech and telling me why you're winning.

- Clearly delineate offs as I should evaluate them, especially when a round includes a lot of layers.

I did two years of PF, one year of LD, and one year of extemp. If you have a question about something not on this paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

Public Forum:

I would consider myself a fairly technical and flow based judge. While I can flow decently well, I generally don’t want to see any spreading (very fast speaking) in PF unless it’s clear both teams are fine with it beforehand.

I also don’t want to see any theory or Kritiks in PF as I feel PF as an event should solely be about the resolution. That being said, there isn’t really a type of argumentation that I will auto-drop, but it’s going to be very hard to win my ballot if your main strategy is off-resolutional arguments. Counterplans are fine as long as they and the resolution are mutually exclusive.

Weighing is absolutely crucial. It’s not enough to win arguments on the flow, you need to tell me why those arguments matter the most in terms of the resolution. If you have to make a choice between weighing and covering the entire flow, choose weighing. The most frustrating rounds to judge are when no one does any weighing or telling me the framework to evaluate the round, and I have to decide on that myself.

LD:

I’m fine with any type of argumentation as long as you tell me why I should vote on it, but I’m somewhat pre-disposed to on-resolution types of argumentation. I don’t have a problem with speed, I will say ‘clear’ if I want you to be more clear.

The framework debate and weighing are very important. Don’t just extend arguments without telling me why they matter. Again, winning the most critical arguments is way more important than winning the most arguments.

Extemp:

If a tournament allows competitors to use notes, I prefer that competitors don’t use notes, and will generally rank competitors who don’t use notes over those who do. I will give time signals. Using sources are important, with publication, author, and date (month and year are fine unless you have a story covering fast-changing events). I consider speaking ability and content/structure to have roughly equal importance.

Congress:

Quality over quantity. I value better speeches and better questions over more speeches and better questions. The best speeches have a good structure, multiple sources, and refute the points of previous speakers. The worst speeches are those that just rehash the same points as previous speakers while adding nothing new.

Policy:

If I am judging Policy, there is a severe shortage of policy judges at the tournament you are at. I don’t know much about Policy Debate at all aside from the amount of policy type arguments I saw in LD. In all honesty, it’s probably best to treat it like a more technical PF round with longer speeches.

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Thomas Mayes

I do not want to be on the e-mail chain.

He/him/his

You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments. I nearly always judge LD. (I judge P/F and Policy on rare occasion. Following my LD paradigm in those events would serve you well also.)

Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer (at least better than your adversary).

Although I have been around LD since the earth cooled, I have no views about how LD should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me, as it is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.

I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Since this is a competitive activity, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. Since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot (such as instructions regarding burdens, speaker point allocations, etc.).

I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be smart, (2) be authentic, (3) be decent to your adversary, (4) be clever, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).

Background: I have degrees from Baylor, Iowa, and Lehigh. I have been a practicing attorney for many years and am currently general counsel for the Iowa Department of Education. My favorite things are running, spicy food, caffeine, collecting passport stamps, and Luka Doncic.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Heya! Just a friendly reminder to chill and have fun. Good luck!

Background:

I’ve debated 3 years of LD and 1 year of PF at Bettendorf High School.

Speaks:

(PF) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower based on strategy on flow, being able to be slow and clear, word economy, GOOD WARRANTING, etc. I’m alright with reasonably fast speeds. I’m only ok with hardcore spreading if

1. It’s an outround
2. If all the judges, debaters, and possible audience members give their ok as well.
3. You disclose.

(LD) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower mainly based on strategy on flow. I'm ok with spreading, just make sure your opponent is ok with it as well. I’ll yell "clear" if I have to. Just disclose the doc to me if you can.

What I’d like to see in a PF round:

TLDR version:

Crystalize to main 1 or 2 impacts -----X------------------- Not collapsing

More args on flow to make ur opp inevitably drop one -----------------------X- Less args but better quality

Flow based ---X--------------------- Non flow

Stock args ----------X-------------- Weirder args

Taking time to check evidence X------------------------ “You’re wasting my time”

Necessary spreading ------------X------------ Normal/slower speaking speed

Sole contention case --X---------------------- Too many contentions

Will listen to CX -----X------------------- Won’t listen to CX

Theory ---------------X--------- Anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-Give me a roadmap and signpost clearly.

-I’m a flow based judge. Which means some real BS can start if you miss a really important FW/observation.

-2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal.

-Choose whether or not you go line-by-line or collapse to a specific arg. However, I HIGHLY VALUE WELL EXPLAINED WARRANTS AND WEIGHING. The clearest, sole reason for why I should vote for you in summary/FF is the best way to win the ballot.

-I’m open to any type of unique/weird argument, but I prefer really well run stock args. Don’t waste my time with poorly run theory/K shells unless you are absolutely committed to making debate better and more accessible.

-I will allow first speaking teams to extend defense from rebuttal to FF but it isn’t preferred.

-CX does affect speaks. Avoiding the question, not giving an answer, not being productive, or just being plain rude will tank points.

-Evidence is SUPER IMPORTANT. Call for it and take your time. I dare you. I’m not afraid to intervene and drop a team if the evidence doesn’t say what it is supposed to say.

What I’d like to see in a LD round:

TLDR version:

Tech ---X--------------------- Truth

Policy ---------------X--------- K

Theory ----------------------X-- Substance

More cards ---------------X--------- Less cards

Conditionality bad ---------------X--------- Conditionality good

Topical case ---------X--------------- Non topical cases

Fairness is internal link -----------------------X- Fairness is an impact

Line by line -----X------------------- Long overviews

Phil cases X------------------------ Literally anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-I'm much more accepting of the line by line in LD instead of a super long overview. This doesn't exclude basic weighing tho.

-I really really love well run stock phil cases.

-I also love Ks -Policy type args like DAs and CPs are also fine.

-Honestly, I’d prefer if you don’t go into a theory/T debate. If there is significant abuse occurring, go for it.

-Overall, just have good impacts/analysis. If you are an ex-policy debater who is really bad with comparing warrants/impacts of a stock Kant NC, you will lose the round. Framework makes the game work.

-I won’t hold it against you or anything but plz disclose if you can.

If you are a novice:

-Just remember to WEIGH your case vs your opponents (use the word weigh).

-Also to EXPLAIN what your arguments and show how it impacts the round as a whole. Don’t just repeat your claim.