Girl just debate lol

I did not participate in debate in HS.

This is my first year as an assistant coach in debate.

I have been a teacher for 9 years in the state of Kansas and have taught nearly every class/prep/whatever of Social Studies between 7th and 12th grade.

My favorite debates feature analysis over cards. I'd rather hear the debater's analysis than rote cards.

I vote based on stock issues. I tend to disfavor kritiks and any arguments on topicality, but am willing to be open-minded if the argument is sound.

I am able to follow speed fairly well. No need to slow it down on my account.

Tarrence Byrd he/him

Please add me to the email chain:byrdtar@usd437.net

Updated 10/31/2023

2nd year, varsity debater at Washburn Rural so I am fine with speed I would prefer a slower round to be honest but it's fine if you don't. Just don't spread if the other team has asked you not to spread. Basically, don't be a jerk. I want to see teams that are kind to each other even while debating. #ChooseKindness!!!

Tell me why I should vote for you (judge instruction)

Run whatever you want I guess it depends on how you make the arguments anyway. Here are my preferences:

Ks: run them if you understand what they are talking about and if you know how to argue for the K on the note of K affs I don't really care what you do with them but if you can persuade me then you will get my ballot. Personally I am pretty interested in K affs but that's only because I want to learn more about them not because I am 100% experienced in them. Ks without alts are fine as long as you articulate the links as case turns. Please explain your K i'm not too familiar with a lot of it. Here are the ones I am mostly familiar with: Cap K and Set Col

Topicality: go for it if you think the aff is untopical as with all things if you can persuade me you will get the ballot. I will also be looking if the aff is untopical and if I find that it is, then which ever team ran T will be getting my ballot. I Love Topicality!

Counterplans: do it I love them I appreciate a good counterplan debate maybe add some theory and I will be happy. I think that advantage counterplans are fine I really like them. Don't run condo if they read literally one counterplan!

Disadvantages: love them go for it I would like to see a good disadvantage debate. Nearly all of my 2NRs are Disads!

Theory: go for it I love these especially. I love to watch good theory debates because it just is a lot of fun for me to watch and I also love going for theory when I debate.

Impact Turns: YES! I love these especially and will be very happy if you run one. I don't see these many times so it would be exciting to see one being debated.

Overall just have fun and yes i copied most of this.

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!

I prefer Stock Issues (I don't love T arguments unless necessary), but if the round moves that way.

CPs are ok, but running a K will be lost on me.

Ok with speed but I prefer not to see it unless necessary

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.

Ok

qualification: I am a second year debator at WRHS

voting: persoanlly the only arg i wont really go for normally is topicality unless you make a really good argument for why topicality matters