I’m a tabula rasa type of judge

Hannah Erdman, Eisenhower High School, Assistant Debate Coach

Previous Experience: HS Policy Debate, Kansas State University Policy Debate

-Please keep email chains off-time, however please be time efficient and use best practices. If that means requesting I be included, please let me know.

-Keep track of your opponent's prep time. I will be giving constructive feedback and actively writing notes and flow. To keep this from being hindered, your use in timing and keeping track of prep time when there is no timekeeper is highly appreciated.

-Debate is about strategy and confidence-- while some aggression is to be expected, I do not want to hear yelling, curse words, or slurs. Do not threaten physical violence and do not insult your opponent's physical appearance or character.

-While I am able to understand most speeds, I deeply appreciate the ability to annunciate and signpost cards and arguments effectively to keep the flow as accurate as possible. If I am unable to keep the flow accurate, that may lead to my voting against your team.

-I go into each round objectively neutral and with no strong favor in either direction. My personal politics do not play into who I vote for, rather the best debate and who provided the strongest arguments all the way through. I do flow arguments to when and how they are addressed.

-On Disadvantages: I like generic DA's, but DA's with strong, specific links are more apt to be voted on, as they are better for complex, competitive debate.

-On Counterplans: CPs can be run, but believe in your counterplan and be confident!

-On Kritik: I love good K, but make it SPECIFIC. You can feel free to run generic K, but I feel as though it does not lend itself for constructive debate.

-On Topicality: I love hearing T arguments-- keep them interesting and stick with them throughout the round! T is a completely valid strategy to use in-round.

-I LOVE framework, rules, and semantics debate. Keep it fun, keep it interesting.

-If you are not flowing, I will not flow. This will ultimately hinder your team.

-Do NOT put new arguments in the 2NC-- it is unfair to the other team to try and answer in rebuttals.

TLDR- I know my ballot is long, its so that you can understand my approach on any argument don't read it all if you don't want to especially if you know your strat going in is a 1 off k why read my thoughts on T then lol. Go for what you're familiar with as a judge my job is to adapt to you as long as you engage with the debate rather than spewing off your coaches 100-page brief. I'm fine with speed or speed K's, open to nontraditional debate or straight stock issues. Please ask questions before round if you're not sure of my opinion of something or what I default to on things such as T standards and Judge kicks. * if a judge is against spreading that I'm on a panel with please accommodate that judge its always so awkward to have 2 of us in the know just to ruin the round for the outlier. However, don't apply that logic to k's please!

add me to the email chain Jaceyg957@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL

Tech > Truth

Plan specific analytics > generic links.

NEG FLEX GOOD (unless you win condo neutral on condo)

Open >Closed CX (I flow CX but don't apply it to the debate unless in speeches)

Bias always exists no matter what another judge writes we all have bias and let them manipulate the ballot in one way or another I will do my best to ignore them and judge purely off of the mechanics of the round however don't be afraid to post round me if you feel that I'm wrong, however be respectful about it (especially seniors)

I'm more than fine with spreading I've ran 11 off rounds before however slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

Rebuttals I really like 2nr 2ar consolidation So slow down and go for what you'll win.

Judge instruction is key even if you don't debate K's arguments such as framework, ROJ, ROB, telling me how to evaluate evidence is crucial to an easy ballot, I need to be able to justify the route I took to sign the ballot for you even if it's a simple MAG= EVERYTHING, PROBABILITY= 100% TIMEFRAME=YESTERDAY.

Please call me Jacey or J calling me Judge is kinda weird when most of you have debated me or at bare minimum are only 1-3 years younger than me, I'm "old" to you but not to the world at least not yet :(

Plan text/CASE (policy)

1AC often times go in with a plan like "set standards on (insert)" I have no idea what this means please be able to specify in cx or 2ac, more specificity the better or else I will lean neg on generic case debates/theory. I love high quality evidence and miss when case debate was a thing, it's okay if your evidence isn't 100% accurate but if the competitors call it out then good luck :).

DO line by line I beg, often people do overviews and then move onto to the off case, I will not cross apply for you.

Read re-highlights I need to know what part the highlight takes out

Presumption is so underutilized; I will grant 0% solvency if warranted however this goes both ways if a CP/ALT is introduced.

DA-

I care most about the tech and utilization of the DA I'm a good judge to run DA's you wouldn't run on lay circuits, you have to defend the entire DA if you lose one part that's wraps (mitigation is different that's below☝). "DA outweighs and turns case" + the inverse aren't actual responses flesh out what that means.

Lastly idc if the impact is both nuke war or if its climate v nuke war, explain why your side is more important too often debaters get lost in the sauce on the magnitude level when the other aspects are far more important unless FW tells me otherwise and even then, when it's both nuke war, we have to break that tie somehow.

CP-

I love Funky CP's do ADV CP's or PICS if you want just execute them well.

Explain the perm, most times the CP can easily be permed but Aff teams don't go further than "perm, perm solves" without explaining what the world of the perms look like.

Theory-

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it, Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

Condo vagueness and disclosure are all viable with me, anything else you'll have to just try and see.

K's!!! -Just ask me my thoughts on your k lit before round lol

I ran a lot of Cap and eco fem k's throughout my last two years in high school with a little bit of set col and anti-blackness, I understand the general thesis behind psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, and some of the pomo k's but don't be afraid to overexplain. Do not expect me to do the work for you if its cap or eco I have some leniency.

I could care less if the alt is "discuss the aff through a Lens of (insert)" or "we set a global paradigm shift." just be able to defend the strategy you go for. Don't do 5-minute overviews and then cross apply it just do the line by line at that point.

please read the literature and be able to explain the link story clearly, I will not grant you 100% of the systematic violence your k tries to address, that's so unrealistic so gage what you can or cannot solve for and or what impacts the aff causes due to the link.

I'll def get heat for this but I think too often teams are afraid to take the positions they believe. I'll listen to a cap good debate, even if people argue its immoral 1 no it isn't it's a discourse, I'd rather have the discussion in a controlled environment like debate and 2 we should engage in all perspectives 3 its real world most old heads support cap.

K affs/performance -

I've written a couple k affs and ran one myself for a little bit, I would like some relationality to the topic however if you decide not to then please be ready for the T debate.

I like K aff debate however don't be annoyingly snarky most of the time inclusion is better to resolve harms addressed then making everyone opps right off the bat. being assertive is good but there is a line I'm a very expressive person you'll see if I think it's too far.

I'd like clear framework with a ROB and ROJ often times when K affs drop its due to a lack of understanding on what exactly the ballot does or how my specific orientation with the aff resolves any harm.

when responding to T I like impact turning T however a crafty counter interp would be nice!

T/FW

I default to fairness acting as an internal link to something like Edu however if you make fairness an impact beef it out.

T v K- I think that Policy teams too often stick to the blocks rather than engaging with the merits of the 1AC. If you go for T in the 2nr explain why the method is bad and do a fair amount of case/presumption work. even if you win that the game of debate should have rules and the aff violates, you need to be able to defend why the game is good or else I'm left confused on what to maintain and K teams entire 1ac at least gives somewhat of a stasis point on if the game is good or not.

T v policy- LOVE LOVE LOVE! I love cheeky interps, T subsets sure why not! I default to C/I however have been persuaded by reasonability, but it needs to be fleshed out more than two lines in the 2ac

I don't agree with some judges that T has to be all five minutes of the 2nr I'd prefer if it was, but I understand that on Pannels where a lay judge is present making T five minutes isn't going to work out.

If asked be able to give a case list.

In front of me arguments about standard setting on research and what it means for the season or next season of debate tend to sway me the most.

MISC

please make the flow clean, don't overstep your partners speeches more than is necessary to win the round.

My hand writing is AWFUL so I'll probably just type out RFD/comments and send them to you if possible so that your coach doesn't wonder what caveman judged the round.

(if you get me in LD or PFD just ask me questions I'm not writing another paradigm when I don't know how they got me in here!)

who's going to carry the boats?

I want big questions and even bigger answers.

Johnke3883@gmail.com

As the judge in this debate round, I stand as a sentinel at the forefront of technical debate, wielding the principles of strategy and skill as my guiding stars. In this arena, where arguments clash like titans and ideas are the weapons of choice, I vow to uphold the sanctity of precision and expertise.

1. Disadvantages (Storm's Wrath): Just as the relentless storm in Fortnite sweeps across the battlefield, disadvantages serve as the tempests of debate, threatening to engulf unprepared adversaries. Here, we recognize the supremacy of foresight and preparation, for those who fail to anticipate the storm shall be swept away by its unforgiving force.

2. Counterplans (Tactical Loadout): In the arsenal of debate, counterplans stand as the versatile tools of strategic warfare. Just as a seasoned Fortnite player carefully selects their loadout, so too must debaters meticulously craft their counterplans to outmaneuver their opponents. Here, we exalt the art of tactical ingenuity, where every move is a calculated step toward victory.

3. Topicality (Boundary Enforcement): Let it be known that within the realm of debate, the boundaries of the resolution are sacrosanct, akin to the confines of the Fortnite map. We stand unwavering in our commitment to upholding the rules of engagement, for in the absence of order, chaos reigns supreme. Here, we champion the cause of clarity and adherence to the established framework.

4. Kritiks (Foundational Deconstruction): Behold the kritik, a weapon forged in the fires of critical inquiry, poised to dismantle the very bedrock of opposing arguments. Like skilled builders in Fortnite, we deconstruct with precision, exposing the vulnerabilities hidden beneath the surface. In this realm of intellectual warfare, we celebrate the pursuit of truth and the relentless quest for enlightenment.

5. Case Debating (Fortress Defense): The case is our fortress, the bastion of our beliefs and the embodiment of our convictions. Just as a vigilant defender in Fortnite fortifies their base against enemy assaults, so too must debaters defend their case with unwavering resolve. Here, we champion the virtues of resilience and strategic acumen, for only through steadfast defense can victory be assured.

In this grand arena of debate, where minds collide and ideas take flight, let it be known that technical prowess shall always reign supreme. For it is through the meticulous application of strategy and skill that we carve our path to victory, leaving an indelible mark upon the annals of intellectual history.

So rally forth, noble debaters, and may the spirit of Fortnite guide your every move. For in this epic struggle of wit and wisdom, the vanguard of technical debate shall forever stand triumphant!

I prefer disadvantage arguments over counter-plans. I find counter-plans to be useless, I prefer arguing how the affirmative is plainly wrong, rather than how the counter plan is more efficient. I enjoy crazy disadvantage arguments if somehow the negative can actually explain how the disadvantage will happen. I am left leaning, arguments like climate change doesn't exist I will probably ignore. I do take account topicality plans and will act rightfully so if the affirmative team is not on topic. Solvency I do find more important than inherency. Inherency arguments I don't really care for if the harms of the affirmative argument justifies the plan. I like the rebuttals to be more analytical than it to be more cards and evidence, I am not fond of teams that add new evidence at the end of the debate, it is not fair if the other team has no time to refute the new evidence. I do take into account confidence in speaking and the ability to not be monotone when giving a speech. I would vote for a team with more confidence with less evidence over than a less confident team with more evidence, manipulation works in debate and in the real world.  

Head Coach --- Goddard High School

Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School

15 years experience

> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <

AFF Cases

You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.

On-Case and Impacts

I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.

DAs

I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.

CPs

I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.

T

Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.

Ks / Theory

Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.

Delivery

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: immagivethe3nr@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:

If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.

Preface

Any agreement that is racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or rudeness will get you the atomic loss for that team. I don’t have any arguments that I don’t like running Im a 4th year debater and forensic myself at Campus run what you want.

T- Topically is good if done correctly. T is an absolute voting issue. If you win T, you win. That is to say, T either has to be your only argument by the end of the debate. I will say T is my least favorite argument that's run, unless its clear the aff is off-topic.

DA- DA’s are good just make sure you have all the parts to DA. Disadvantages are like tables if you're missing one leg (ex- link) your whole table will fall so make sure it is a full DA.

K- Kirtiks are my favorite arguments. I'm a K debater myself if you do a K argument though don't be a robot have an emotion that's the whole point for the K. If you don't know the K don't run it.

CP- Counter plans are good. I will only vote on a CP if you have a net benefit to go along with it (ex- DA)

CASE- ????

The case is so important, as the neg you need to push case push why your off case links and affects the aff. As the aff it's your job to explain the case to me you know it the best so tell me why the aff outweighs the neg.

Lastly,

Be Interesting be funny make me laugh be different.

I do love fun and playful sarcasm but be nice!

And lastly, this is a school activity you should not be scared every debater has been in the same spot as you, so have fun!

I debated for 4 years at Campus high school. Please asks questions before a round if you need to. Just try to convince me of your arguments, go as crazy as you want but make it convincing.

Aff

If you drop a neg argument that plausibly outweighs you will lose.

The burden of proof is on you, and at the end of the debate i need to be convinced why I should vote for the affirmative.

Neg

T - topicality is a prima facie argument, I will vote based on a good T argument but I will fault you if you make half hearted T arguments

CP - Counterplans must at least be better than the aff in one way and must be mutually exclusive, simply restating the aff case but from the negative side will lose you the round

K - a good K argument wins, I love Ks, but I want to see a K that is run well and is fully explained

"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest

# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)

Feelins bout stuff-

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.

On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.

Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.

Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

Be nice pls!

Tech >>> truth

email chain!!! adamperronedebate@gmail.com

Share evidence before speech -- I will interrupt if you dont <3<3<3

top level stuff --

extend case always in the 2ac and rebuttals!!!! You will lose if it is not there

I assume you are novice if I am judging you, please know how to rebuttal -- If an argument is not brought up in the rebuttals, it is not being considered when writing my ballot.

I consider myself to be tabula rasa, I hate judge intervention, so unless you fail to extend voters, you are probably fine.

I will quite literally vote for anything, just debate it well.

Speed: yes

I do not care about presentation whatsoever. -- eye contact does not matter

Be casual with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neg:

Off-case:

Theory args: Get creative with these please.

Topicality: I favor T quite highly, that being said, if there aren’t any standards or voters I am not going to vote for you. Though I understand T is a blippy argument, with me you can probably win on it if debated well.

DA’s: I don’t mind generic links, just make sure that they actually do link. That being said, I won’t vote you down if it doesn’t link and your opponents don’t point it out. You will not win on a DA if you drop the impact debate????????????????????????????????????????????????????

K’s: “This is me, this is how I win” - Howard Ratner. DO NOT READ KRITIK IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. It is painful to watch. I love kritiks, but too many times do debaters find a random pomo k on open evidence and run it without understanding it. Though this is probably a small school, you can very much win with kritiks with me. In fact, I highly encourage that you run kritiks. Please actually link again. If you run a Kritik, you should be prepared to debate framework well.

CP’s: Run a topical counterplan. Aff’s if you simply say “THEY CANNOT RUN TOPICAL CP’s” you are not winning on that issue. Maybe if this was the 1950s and the resolution was the policy, then I would be like, oh that is right. But today, the resolution does not imply one simple policy, which means that if your cp is topical but competitive, you can very much win. That being said, but if you give me a theory argument with voters, then you are doing well!!!! I’m cool with any type of competitiveness, from functional to plan-plan.

On-case:

TOP LEVEL CASE STUFF: you likely will not win if you only have case in your 1nc (given you dont have any turns) -- say you take out solvency... so? Unless you prove to me that not having solvency is a voter, i will not vote on it alone -- same with any defensive case arg -- inherency, solvency, harms. my reasoning: If you only run defensive arguments you give me as a judge no harm attached to signing an affirmative ballot -- why having no solvency is harmful... Prove solvency is a voter and then you are on the right path.

Inherency: This is an arg that doesn’t come with any offense, though a lot of them may be true, you would probably be better off running off case arguments. If you want to run it as a strategy skew or something, go ahead. Plus, inherency generally takes out DA uniqueness, but you probably know that.

Solvency: take it out, idk.

Harms/sig: takeout or mitigate?

I generally will not vote on "they don't have one of the stock issues" unless you attach a voter to it.

Aff:

run any aff bud.....

-- extend case throughout your speeches, or you will lose.

-- the only exception would be if you go for a procedural in the rebuttals or some type of offense-- just warrant the ballot for me. I am fine with you going for condo in the 2ar or an aff kritik.

-- I am fine with you making any argument from perm do both to a completely intrinsic perm, just justify it.

If the rebuttals do not warrant a ballot, you will lose on presumption, regardless of who sounds the best and did the debating early on.

Name: Jesse Piña

Pronouns: He

School affiliation: Goddard

Years of Experience: 4

# of Rounds on this Year’s Topic: 0

STYLISTICS:

I like aggression in Cross-ex, 

DEFAULT PARADIGM: I like Stock issues: legal model, because I like debates to be on track and not going into arguments that don’t have anything to do with the topic. But I Like K’s as well.

How should debaters approach CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES: They should be as fast and clear as possible and should cover all stock issues.

How should debaters approach REBUTTAL SPEECHES: you should cover all arguments brought up by previous speeches.

How should debaters approach EVIDENCE: share your evidence if your opponents ask for it. And do not give uncut eveidence, that's a jerk move.

How much do you value ON CASE debate in a round: You should put the most focus on, on case because if you lose one of them it’s hard to win at all.

What does the AFFIRMATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot: needs to show me they have won all on case arguments to win, especially solvency.

What does the NEGATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot: they need to prove the aff team’s plan won’t work.

What types of behavior(s) will you NOT TOLERATE in a round: I won’t tolerate bad sportsmanship, cheating, racism, and violence.

What types of behavior do you ENJOY seeing/hearing in a round: I enjoy a good cross-ex and Kritik.

SPEAKER POINTS

30 = 100

29.5 and above = 95-99

29 and above = 89-94

28.7 and above =86-88

28.5 = 79-85

28.4 and below = 70-78

28 and below = 60-69

25 and below = 50-59

Below a 20 = 0-49

-

What preferences (explain in some detail) do you have as a judge towards…

>>>Conduct / Sportsmanship, I like aggression but you should not be mean.

>>>Speed, you should go as fast as you can but be clear in your speaking

>>>Cross-Examination, be aggressive if you are asking the questions and waste time if you are answering questions.

>>>Prep Time, don’t use it all at once.

>>>Impact calculus: just 1 of 3 is no win, 2 of 3 is a possible win, 3 out of 3 is an automatic win

>>>Topicality: Don’t spend all your time on this, I should just know why your topical.

>>>Disadvantages: make sure they are not just nuclear war

>>>Counterplans: should be shown as better than the aff plan.

>>>Kritiks, You have to provide reasons that your K needs to change our thinking and you need to show why

What mindset do you use when filtering arguments / arriving at your RFD: I think did they win stock issues, how did the aff do in the 1 AC and how did the neg do in cross-ex.

What other comments and/or preferences and/or personality quirks do you have that would be relevant to the debaters: as I have said I love aggression and I will not just make you lose because you were too aggressive.

The last word(s) for debaters. This could be literally anything that is appropriate: If you just win stock issues or make sure the aff does not that’s all you need to do to win realistically.

I have experience as a high school debate and assistant debate coach. I care about stock issues. If you are using speechdrop, I will follow along with the evidence. I will also do my best to flow the arguments. Read cards as fast as you want, but if your words blur together because of poor enunciation I won't understand what you're saying. Don't drop arguments. I prefer no new arguments in the rebuttals. If I'm keeping track of your time, I will say "time" when time runs out. I don't care if CX is open or closed, but if any of the debaters prefer it to be closed, it will be. Please decide this before the round starts. Respect each other and don't make any ad hominem arguments.

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

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.

General: My preference first and foremost is for a clear logical argument that can easily be followed and clearly addresses all stock issues. Don't make me work really hard to follow your case. I am not a huge fan of spreading. I understand wanting to fit in as many arguments as possible, but, sometimes speed is not your friend. Plus, if you go for speed, the odds are greater I am going to miss an argument. Clash is great and I enjoy seeing a great competitive debate.

I am open to almost all arguments providing that they make sense and they are well organized and can be easily followed. So I expect off-time roadmaps and signposts. Remember, I'm not an expert on your case you are, and I expect to be able to follow along, even if I don't have the evidence in front of me. I'm going to drop arguments on my flow if you don't make sure that I can follow your arguments. The mistake students make that drives me the most nuts is not flowing and dropping arguments.

On-case: I don't consider myself a stock issues judge, even though I often vote on stock issues. Don't ignore or completely gloss over them because you don't think they are as important as your off-case arguments.

Off-case: When on the neg I want to see good solid disadvantages and counterplans that are constructed well (make sure your uniqueness and links where appropriate are obvious). I am not a fan of kritiks (especially if they are not exceptionally strong), and I really dislike kaffs. If you are going to run a kritik make sure it's in the 1NC and make sure you can tie it back to the actual resolution. Running a generic K often feels to me that you are grasping at straws. I hate abuse arguments unless it's blinding clear that the other team is being abusive. At its core I want the resolution argued.

Evidence Sharing: Your evidence needs to be in speechdrop or emailed at the end of your prep time. Don't take extra time at the podium putting the evidence in speech drop. I consider that to be a theft of prep time and I see it happen all the time (I provide more grace to novices as they are learning). Prep time theft is my number one pet peeve. Evidence sharing - I prefer speech drop. If you using an email chain use emma.webb@staff.usd305.com.

Professional Behavior: I'm also a stickler about professional behavior from all debaters. Every team has varying levels of experience and skill, but they all deserve to be treated respectfully.

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.

Hi! I'm a third year debater from Derby High School. Don't be afraid to ask me any questions you might have <3

I'm a laid back person - you don't have to address me as judge outside of the debate.

I prefer disadvantage & topicality arguments to K's & CP's. I will vote on topicality if its ran right. Please don't run K's or CP's unless you 100% understand what you are arguing. I think the burden of proof rests on affirmative, and at the end of the debate you need to convince me why I should vote for aff.

I don't like unnecessary aggressiveness, particularly during CX.

A clear voice and confidence wins over speed for me. I think confidence is key when arguing and presenting your case.