Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

She/Her

2nd year - WARU

email: heinesop@usd437.net

Debate is a game, so do what you want

I am willing to give feedback on anything you want. I am happy to see novices grow and learn.

General rules

1. tech >>> truth
2. I am very open to any type of debate and will listen to any sort of Aff or neg position so read what you know the most about.
3. Cross X is binding as long as it is brought up in a speech
4. Kindness matters. If you are being rude to me, your partner or the other team your speaks will be lowered and depending on the situation it could cost you the round
5. Don't steal prep. I also don't care if you stop prep before sending the email as long as you don't take forever
6. If you talk like a robot who got forced to be here your speaks will go down and you will bore me so please at least act as if you enjoy debate, because I do and would like for that to not get spoiled.
7. Go whatever speed you prefer but if you are just gonna scream blocks at least send them or slow down a bit so everyone can understand you.
8. Prompting is okay... but keep it minimal. Each person should be giving two speeches especially if you are novices or middle schoolers.
9. This is random but I don't like cussing in rounds - prove your point otherwise

CPs - have to have a Net Benefit. I think they should prove why the aff is bad and why the CP is preferable. Other than that go crazy lol.

Theory - I lean neg on condo and aff on perf con but I can be swayed either way. Most theory arguments if done well I will listen too and can vote either way. Any reject the team arg needs to be well warranted out and should be connected to the round - I will not vote on anything outside the debate. Other than condo I will most of the time side on "reject the arg/ card not the team". Condo also should not be a short blip in the 1AR then turned into a 5-minute speech for the 2AR because that basically is just turning your time arguments.

DAs - should have all the key ingredients. Turning a Da is good as long as it makes sense. As a 1N, I am a big DA fan tbh. The neg should be proving the entirety of the DA and extending your impacts. I also expect outweigh arguments/ impact calc in rebuttals for both teams.

T - yeah do whatever as long as you can prove that your interp of the topic is the best interp and that they don't fit into that interp. Aff I don't necessarily need a counter interp as long as you meet theirs. For framework, I will vote on fairness pretty easily if I think something is unfair and the team explains why that matters.

Ks - I think they need a solid link, impact and an alt would be preferable. I will be honest the only lit I have really read is cap and set col, so you will have to explain others, but I have gone against a good variety. You also should prove why your framework is the most important if it is going to be framework-centered. I will say going for a sturdy framework on the K in front of me is probably the better move because I am more inclined to vote on it.

Case - impact turns good. Aff: EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS!!!! If you do not clearly extend your impacts I will just assume you don't have any and it makes it 100 times easier for the neg to win. For impact turns, I know the most about dedev but I also enjoy the other forms of turns quite a lot.

Assume everything else is fine.

Have fun, debate to your best ability.

Last Updated---1/12/2024

Washburn Rural '26

joeljijo87@gmail.com

Topics: (NATO, Fiscal Redistribution)

Top Level

I believe that debate is a game of technical strategy and that if you debate better and make the better arguments, I believe that you should win. I believe that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant in a debate round I think that debaters should go for the argument that they usually go for. My preferences do not matter when it comes to what kind of debater you are. Just because I like a certain argument does not mean that I will 100% vote for it all the time I am generally neutral in all of them. I also believe that dropped arguments are considered true.

I believe that the debate space is open to all types of arguments but any that may be going against ethical standards should be rejected. I don't think that anything someone has done outside a debate round should ever be brought into the debate space. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Tech over Truth

I believe that evidence and evidence comparison is a very underrated skill in debate. I think that more people should start making arguments about the authors and dates of each card and should be contesting the actuality of the card itself. I believe that dropped evidence is true however quality is much better than quantity.

I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

I love seeing cross applications as opposition to arguments on different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

You can insert evidence although you will have to explain it. This is not a robot activity, this is a communication activity. That means explain your rehighlighting inserts.

I will be very sad if you send a pdf document as a speech.

Argument Specific

Counterplans: Nice. Do it. Disadvantages: Nice. Do it. Topicality: Nice. Do it. Don't run T as a time skew that will result in lower speaks. That means don't run like 4 T shells and kick them all in the block. Same thing applies to vagueness and ASPEC. Kritiks: My lit base is quite narrow, this means a couple of things. 1. You will have to explain to me what is bad about the plan. 2. You will have to understand the arguments you are making. I have worked with lit such as Settler colonialism and Orientalism. I will determine who wins framework through evaluating each framework interpretation. I believe that this is the best way for me to evaluate Ks. You need to make it very clear why you win framework, just saying that the aff is an object of research will not cut it. You need to be able to explain what that means and how that implicates the affirmatives arguments.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

K Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Case:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

I will vote for anything. If you don't answer an argument, you immediately lose said argument. Extending it in CX counts and CX is binding. I really like rehighlighted evidence, but make sure it isn't too cherry-picked.

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.