I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)

I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.

I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.

Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.

Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.

Zachary Brown

He/Him/His

zrbrown@gmail.com
Updated: Sept 2019

Background:
8 years debate experience 2000-2008 (Derby HS, Wichita State University)

11 years coaching experience 2007-2018 (Assistant coach- Wichita East HS, Wichita State University, Head Coach- Hutchinson HS)

I am no longer as active as I used to be and I have not coached or judged extensively for the last few years. Explain your topic acronyms and argument jargon.

I think the topic is important but what the "topic" means is open for discussion. Debate is an important forum and I support efforts to discuss ways to make the community better.

I feel that respect and inclusion are fundamental values. Be mindful of the people in the room. Be nice! I have no tolerance for rude, disrespectful, and exclusionary behavior. Don't like it? Strike me. Debate is a game. Play to win, but have fun!

I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make it a good one. I am not impressed by teams who copy the latest trends and arguments from a college or national circuit wiki without fundamental knowledge on how to execute those arguments. I like innovative arguments and I've voted for some wild stuff, but know your argument and do it well. I appreciate gutsy decisions and well executed strategy. I miss case debate.

At the risk of being a luddite, I don't like to call for cards and I don't want to get your speech doc. Debate is a communication activity and too many debaters rely on the speech doc to make arguments that the were not clearly made in a speech. I don't want to read the evidence unless I have to. Usually if I call for a card that means that there is a fundamental disagreement about contents, suspicion of clipping, or unclear argumentation. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. The most underutilized skill in debate is good evidence comparison. Give me reasons to "prefer your evidence". It is the job of the debater to explain their arguments in a way that is understandable and flowable. Rate of delivery doesn't matter to me, but clarity does.

I know there is lots of other stuff to discuss. Just ask me before round if you have any questions.

6.2.5

Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

Competitive History: 3 years HS CX debate @ Crosby HS (TX), 1 year college CX debate @ San Jacinto College (TX)

Currently an assistant coach at Salina South (KS)

I'm open to any and all arguments although I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm.  I prefer a good line by line, technical-on-the-flow debate.  Your evidence is everything and so the quality of that evidence weighs heavily in my decision-making process.  If you want to have an advantage in my rounds, have better evidence and make warrants, don't just extend arguments.  If something is dropped, tell me why I should care, because if you don't, chances are I won't.  Be smart, be technical, and be strategic.  

Specifics:

Case debate/DA/Impact Calculus -- Yes please. 

Topicality -- T was my partner's baby and I never really got the feel for it until recently.  If you want my attention to vote on Topicality, give T the attention it deserves in the 2NR. I think 1NC's should run T just to test the 1AC at minimum.   

Kritiks -- I'm kind of a fan of an alternative that solves the K, but the debate is won/lost on the link debate for me. Run them if you wish but know your stuff and assume I don't. 

CP - Yeah, these are cool too, but don't just run them to present an alternative to the 1AC because you don't know what else to run. I also prefer the CP to actually have a text. Consult CPs are iffy for me but I'll vote on them.  States CP are usually boring as boring can be but I'll vote for them so as long as you can win the impact calculus through the net benefit.  

Stock Issues -- Obviously they're important, but don't squawk about how I'm supposed to vote on them to preserve the rules of the whatever and whatnots. That being said, I do prefer Inherency to be handled like T, by defining which inherent barrier(s) the 1AC should have, how they violate, reasons to prefer/standards, and voters. 

ASPEC, OSPEC, Vagueness, ISPEC -- See directly above. Basically just another Topicality flow.  Treat it as such. 

Theory -- I will not vote on potential abuse unless there is silence on it from the other team. Even then, I may not. If you're going to do theory, be very good at theory.  Theory Line dumps passing each other like ships in the night does not make me enjoy that flow one bit. 

Kritikal Affs -- Still gotta defend that resolution. 

Other tidbits -- Speed is fine, but clarity is important. I do flow warrants so please be clear in the card.  Obviously offense>defense, but defensive arguments can be beneficial in impact calculus.  Analytical arguments are fine but warranted evidence will always outweigh.  Please do all roadmaps off time.  Signposting in your speech is crucial, signposting in your off-time roadmap is not.  

New in the 2NC -- Reading new off-case positions in the 2NC such as a new DA, K, CP, etc... = NOT COOL. Yes, I'm aware it isn't against the rules, and yes I'm aware it is a constructive speech. It is also a poor strategy in the long run, a VERY cheap and abusive way to overburden the 1AR, and it makes whatever the 2AC says a potential moving target.  A new case dump in the 2NC isn't much better either, but at least those can be somewhat derived from the 1AC.  I will not vote directly against doing such things on an abuse level, but you are unlikely to win these arguments if they were not first introduced in the 1NC (introduced analytically is okay), and your speaker points will be reduced.  If new arguments (offense) are an extension of previous arguments from the 1NC -- that's great, and I strongly encourage that. 

Speaker points -- I'm usually in the range of 25-30.  I don't believe that 30s are the holy grail and should be treated as such.  I've given a few.  Most people get 27-28.5 on an average ballot.  Be smart, get higher speaker points.  Be rude, get lower speaks.  I won't go lower than a 25 unless you're offensive in-round, and I have a high threshold of being personally offended. Open CX is fine but know the speaks are being adjusted somewhat by the balance of answers/questions ratio. 

More tidbits -- Don't shake my hand after the round please. Its not that I don't want to shake your hand or that I'm a germophobe, but I'm probably writing on your ballot at this time. Before the round is totally okay. If time and tournament permits, I'll give a very brief post-round oral critique.  Although I won't directly disclose winner, my critiques usually paint the picture. Secondly, debate is a fun activity. The last thing I want you to feel is that you have to be the uptight lawyer you're dressed as.  Be yourself.  Laugh.  Have fun.  Don't apologize for misspoken words.  I'm not grading/judging you on your vocabulary, your stutter, or your goofy bow tie.  I'm grading/judging you on the quality of your arguments.   

I don’t believe that there are true 100% tabula rasa judges, but I am about as tabula rasa as it gets. Give me a framework and a reason to prefer and I will probably but it if it makes sense. I am high flow and I evaluate stock issues. I am ok with speed for the most part and can generally keep up with most styles. Just make sure I get a tag and the author/date so I can keep the flow organized and give me weighted reasons to prefer/impact calculus.