Sohail Jouya Paradigm

Last changed 5/29 10:56P CDT

AFFILIATIONS:
Current Director of Debate at Mill Valley (Kansas)

Formerly of:
Director of Debate at Andover Central (Kansas)
Director of Debate at University Academy and Lincoln Prep (DEBATE – Kansas City)
Coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College

Yes, email chain - sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

UPDATE:

If you use your phone as a timer and you use this as your ringer - NO POINTS, NO WINS! (That's like anti-ASMR)


BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech. I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of "realistic impacts" or "reasonability" -- what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.
Don't fret: if the 1NC drops case on your Cthulu Aff, you'll probably be fine to weigh against whatever stuff they got...

- As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour and shade have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t in bad faith. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that probably needs to be established prior to the 2NR. While I say that, I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not.
If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.


Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Heart of Texas 2 10/18/2019 HD R1 St. Mark's School of Texas AC St Francis AM Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/12/2019 VCX Partia Little Rock Central GP Bentonville TM Neg Neg on a 3-0
JW Patterson Invitational 10/12/2019 VCX R6 Little Rock Central GL Newton HM Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/12/2019 VCX R4 Derby CS Union WM Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/12/2019 VCX R3 Little Rock Central AR Blue Valley Northwest KV Aff
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 DCI R3 22 Cook & Navarro 6 Krambeer & Rose Neg
ONW Debate Invitational 10/4/2019 DCI R2 23 Joseph & Hossler 3 Cathey & Valverde Aff
Blue Valley Southwest 9/27/2019 Var R1 Blue Valley Northwest RX Trinity BK Aff
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 OFs Lawrence Free State BH Blue Valley Southwest PH Neg Neg on a 2-1
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 DOFs Little Rock Central AR Blue Valley Southwest SwSa Aff Aff on a 2-1
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/20/2019 VADB8 R3 Shawnee Mission South FT Olathe East TB Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 WS R6 Florida Sunshine White Rushmore Blue Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 WS R4 North Texas Longhorns Red San Fran Bay Red Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2019 WS R2 Big Valley Gold Western Washington Red Neg
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R6 Wichita Skelton & Wedel MO State Kauffman & Reeves Neg
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R5 K-State Leyba & Engle UMKC Davis & Hauschildt Aff
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R4 KU Bastian & Snow UTSA Hernandez & Weathersby Aff
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R3 JCCC Moncure & Farris Concordia Kosevich & Krueger Aff
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R2 Concordia Harvanko & Shih Emporia Monteith & Kuiper Neg
Bear Shock at Wichita State 1/18/2019 Open R1 UMKC Curry & Schartz Wichita Benson & Flores Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA DOFs 24A Olathe North 21B Hutchinson Neg Neg on a 3-0
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R6 17B Mill Valley 7C Garden City Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R5 19C BV West 10C BV North Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R3 18B Wichita East 2C Lawrence Aff
KSHSAA 2 Person Debate Tournament 1/11/2019 KSHSA R2 14D SM South 9A Manhattan Neg
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R7 3 Moore & Rowley 7 Nguyen & Halabi Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R4 10 Marin & Walentowski 1 Abbott & Herman Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R3 11 Bansemer & Hybki 3 Johnson & Torkelson Neg Neg on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R2 10 Allman & Fuson 7 Gonzalez & Ajmera Neg Neg on a 3-0
Sunflower District Tournament 12/7/2018 CX R1 4 Baxter & Powner 9 Kurtzweil & Vu Aff Aff on a 3-0
Maize High School 11/30/2018 VP RD 3 Washburn Rural GR Salina South DV Aff
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 NOV Finals Derby Phetsomphou & Wentling Wichita East Warren & Gong Neg Neg on a 3-0
Panther Debate Tournament 11/9/2018 JV R1 Hutchinson Unruh & Miller Campus White & Perez Aff
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI Double Millard North Grace Clausen & Gavin Graves Wichita East Malhar Tamhane & Noah Yust Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R4 Maize Amanda Branom & Jeannine Lopez Wichita East Maitri Ajmera & Aryan Waghmode Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R3 Trinity David Koster & Nicole Gish Maize Connor Mitchell & Jason Liang-Lin Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R2 Goddard Tessa Gardner & Lynae Silva Blue Valley Southwest Isha Patel & Aatif Syed Neg
KCKCC TOC DCI Qualifier 11/2/2018 DCI R1 Kapaun Mount Carmel Madeline Rowley & Margaret Moore Olathe East Taegan Towsend & Kayla Breit Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX Octas Wichita East TY Barstow PL Neg Neg on a 3-0
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX Partia Blue Valley Southwest StWu Wichita East TY Neg Neg on a 3-0
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R5 Wichita East QS Liberal Arts and Science GR Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R4 Crossings Christian HK Blue Valley Southwest StWu Neg
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R3 Crossings Christian NB Blue Valley Northwest RB Neg
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R2 Blue Valley Southwest SW Wichita East NH Aff
JW Patterson Invitational 10/20/2018 VCX R1 Liberal Arts and Science JM Crossings Christian HC Neg
Blue Valley Southwest Invitational 9/28/2018 R3 KapMou DR BVNW BS Aff
Blue Valley Southwest Invitational 9/28/2018 R2 LawFre BB LanSr ZW Neg
Blue Valley Southwest Invitational 9/28/2018 R1 LawFre HW BVW ST Neg
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/16/2018 CX S Lincoln East GL Edina DA Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/16/2018 CX Q Millard West KG Lincoln RK Aff Aff on a 2-1
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/16/2018 CX R2 Edina BS Lincoln East GL Neg
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/16/2018 CX R1 Edina DA Lincoln GS Aff
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 Nov Quarte Blue Valley Southwest Kristina Wu & Owen Li Barstow Phoebe Brous & Jacqueline Tingle Neg Aff on a 2-1
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 DCI 6 Eisenhower Jaden Brown & Carl Jacobson Blue Valley Southwest Anjali Roy & Chloe Shi Neg
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 Nov R5 Little Rock Central Adithya Kombathula & Shreyas Adicherla Sumner Jaleon Brown & Neymara Freeman Aff
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 Nov R4 Blue Valley Southwest Kristina Wu & Owen Li Barstow Noah Waldman & Rishi Malay Neg
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 DCI R3 Shawnee Mission East Jacob Roberts & Grant Colvin Little Rock Central Sakshi Garg & Valorie Lam Aff
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 DCI R2 Wichita East Quan Nguyen & Justin Real Blue Valley West Seena Saiedian & Dan Vasudevan Neg
KCKCC TOC Qualifier 11/3/2017 DCI R1 Wichita East Sarwa Shah & Maitri Ajmera Derby Noah Graham & Alec Hinecker Neg
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 JV Qrtrs Emporia State JW Kansas LW Aff Aff on a 3-0
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R6 Cal State Fullerton RT Oklahoma SN Neg
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R5 UT San Antonio WS Kansas State LF Neg
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R4 Texas WS Cal State Fullerton VR Aff
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R3 Cal State Fullerton HB Iowa GL Neg
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R2 Texas BP Emporia State RN Aff
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R1 Johnson County Community MZ Weber State TW Aff
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R7 Rochester AB Georgia State CL Neg
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R6 Emporia State RW NYU CP Aff
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R4 Louisville GT Kansas State PP Neg
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R3 Binghamton MP Texas SH Neg
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R2 Fullerton Indy GR Iowa CK Neg
Cross Examination Debate Assocation National Tournament 3/17/2017 Open R1 Wisconsin- Madison DP Nevada Las Vegas TS Neg
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX S Lincoln East GL Millard West KG Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX Q Lincoln NW Lincoln East CS Neg Neg on a 3-0
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX R5 Lincoln East GL Lincoln NW Aff
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX R4 Lincoln East CS Millard West FN Aff
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX R2 Millard West JP Lincoln East JW Neg
The Milo Cup at Millard North 2/17/2017 OCX R1 Lincoln East PR Millard West KG Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 8 Binghamton MP Rutgers-Newark CW Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 7 Northern Iowa KM Puget Sound PR Aff
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 5 Wake Forest SV Southern California BL Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 3 Georgia State HW Gonzaga JM Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI Finals Blue Valley West Birzer & Narayanan Lansing Wong & Martin Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI Quarte Lindale Desai & Thrasher-Evers Little Rock Central Jung & Jung Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI Octos Barstow Durwood & Tingle Little Rock Central Jung & Jung Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R6 Barstow Khan & Hattan Sumner Lowe & Murguia Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R5 Blue Valley North Ross & Toniappa Derby Graham & Hinecker Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R4 Blue Valley Northwest Garimella & Shankar Cabot Cummings & Hudson Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/4/2016 DCI R2 Blue Valley West Ma & Garimella Little Rock Central Cole & Cunningham Neg
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open Finals UMKC/KSU State SS Kansas HS Neg Aff on a 2-1
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open Semi UMKC/KSU State SS Kansas GD Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open Quarte UMKC KC Kansas CF Aff Neg on a 2-1
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open R6 UMKC KC Kansas HS Neg
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open R5 Oklahoma MW Concordia SR Aff
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open R3 UMKC/KSU State SS Concordia GN Aff
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open R2 Concordia SR Kansas HS Neg
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/7/2016 Open R1 Oklahoma MW Kansas CF Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 JV Semis Missouri - Kansas City Jutt & Hauschildt Towson Gillespie & Underdue Neg Neg on a 2-1
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 Open R7 Arizona State Ferdowsian & Vinson Central Oklahoma Karns & Moore Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 JV R6 Florida Callaghan & Kizito Missouri - Kansas City Jutt & Hauschildt Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 Open R5 Kansas State Penn & Pena Missouri - Kansas City Schartz & Scott Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 Open R4 Texas Harun & Segura Oklahoma Juarez & White Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 JV R3 UT San Antonio Rakestraw & Woeppel Johnson County Community Engelbert & Singleton Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 Open R2 Southern California Berger & Larsen Rutgers-Newark Stafford & Carrera Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/17/2016 Open R1 Kansas Delph & Glasscock Towson Begum & Goodman Aff
UMKC Summer Debate Institute 7/20/2016 OPEN R2 Brennan/Munday Ellis & Kantner Chase/Fisher Chan & Romo Aff
UMKC Summer Debate Institute 7/20/2016 OPEN R1 Garcia/Scott Carlson & O'Brien Chase/Fisher Wallentine & Yap Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI Quarte Lindale Ramsey & Thrasher-Evers Millard North Hock & Kriz Aff Neg on a 2-1
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI Octos Little Rock Central Jung & Jung Millard North Hock & Kriz Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI Double Blue Valley Northwest Garimella & Ramanujan Shawnee Mission East Bledsoe & Paris Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI R6 Barstow Dunn & Pickard Millard North Hock & Kriz Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 Nov R5 Little Rock Central Carlson & Cunningham Barstow Lin & Williams Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI R4 Shawnee Mission West Hui & Vering Millard South H.S. Coulliard & Sprague Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI R3 Little Rock Central Jung & Jung Shawnee Mission Northwest Thomas & Ottinger Neg
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI R2 Millard North Band & Sosalla-Bahr Barstow Fussell & Nalamachu Aff
KCKCC DCI TOC Qualifier 11/6/2015 DCI R1 Millard North Emma Clausen Barstow Fitzpatrick & Maiale Aff
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 Open Semi North Texas CS Missouri - Kansas City KM Aff Aff on a 3-0
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 NOV R7 Northern Iowa KO Southern Methodist KS Neg Neg on a 3-0
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 JV Round Central Oklahoma AW Missouri State FD Aff
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 Open Round Johnson County Community College GP North Texas AM Neg
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 Open Round Johnson County Community College OP Missouri - Kansas City KM Neg
KCKCC Blue Devil Debates 10/9/2015 Open Round North Texas CS Johnson County Community College SM Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 8 North Texas AA Binghamton BS Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 7 Oklahoma SC Houston MG Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 5 Cal State Fullerton DG Weber State OP Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 JV Round Oklahoma MM UT Dallas SE Neg
Kansas State Soul of America 2/14/2015 Open R7 EmpSta Gilmore & Huachaca KanCit Gonzaba & Joseph Neg Aff on a 2-1
Kansas State Soul of America 2/14/2015 Open R4 JohCou Owen & Moore KanCit Casas & Nave Neg
Kansas State Soul of America 2/14/2015 Open R2 Linden Mire & Swinford EmpSta Gilmore & Huachaca Neg