Experience: 4 years high school debate policy debate, 1year college policy debate, 3 years college parliamentary debate, several years of assistant coaching, sponsoring, and judging.

Paradigm: I typically am a stock issues judge. That being said, I am not afraid to ignore poorly-made arguments from either side. I will listen to speed, but not if it's muddled or sloppy. The important thing is for you to get your points across. If that means speaking at a standard rate, great. If that means speed-speaking and you're clear, great. I love the line by line debate; that is what I want to see.

T: I would prefer them to not be just a time-suck. Make them an integral part of your strategy.

DAs and Advs: Make the story coherent; get all your links straightened out.

CPs: That's fine. Again - integral part, not just an arg on the table for the other team to respond to during the round.

K: It had better be amazing for you to run it in front of me. I am completely unafraid to vote a team down because of a K.

Don't the afraid of analytical arguments. If you've got a great argument but can't find or don't have the exact card you need, go ahead and make the argument. I'd rather listen to coherent, logical, compelling analytics then cards that don't apply.

Limited Experience. Judged Forensic 

Flow judge, moderate to fast speaking. Debated three years in highschool and did forensics (extemp, impromptu) all four.

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.

I've debated in both high school and college. I've been strictly judging the past two years. I'm good with speed if you are clear. I'll put my pen down if you marble mouth. Please make Tags and authors distinct and clear. I don't buy the Speed Bad argument unless there is clear abuse (I can't understand either). I'm familiar with most K theory. Please explain if the other team is lost. Kritiks are meant to change the way we think, and if the other team doesn't grasp entirely, then you've defeated the purpose of the K. I don't buy T unless there is clear abuse. I'm pretty easy going. I most adopt as a games play judge. Please be kind and respectful to eachother. This activity is meant to be inclusive and educational. 

Yes email chain please:

nolangoodwin21@gmail.com

Debated four year at Salina South High School

Coached on and off since 2013

Speed is fine. If I can't understand you I will just say clear.

Don't just read pre-prepared blocks straight from your laptop at full speed with little contextualization to the arguments the other team is making. Please don't just speed read over views to me in the 2NR/2AR and expect to win my ballot. Don't force me to make a decision because you chose not to slow down and contextualize your arguments. It's pretty easy to tell if I am agreeing with your argumentation. I will either miss important things you want me to vote on, or I will try to keep up with everything and not think about the arguments which will most likely result in me voting on something that you didn't actually want me to vote for.

K vs FW- If you are going to read a K aff in front of me please take the time to explain what the aff does. Defending some type of advocacy statement in front of me is going to be the best option when reading a K aff. I enjoy topic debates but that doesn't mean that I haven't voted for K affs. I often end up voting neg on FW because the aff doesn't effectively argue against a topical version of the aff. I don't really find arguments about framework creating violence to be very persuasive and reading debate bad in front of me is not going to get you anywhere.

CP- I would prefer that you have a well thought out text than just some vague text that says we do the plan minus x or something like that. Don't be afraid to go for theory arguments in front of me on cheating counter plans that don't actually do anything. I would much rather vote for theory arguments than some process counterplan that does nothing.

K- I'm good on basic K lit but if you are reading some new alt that you haven't read before or are breaking something new I would probably not suggest doing it in front of me unless you can clearly explain what the world of the alternative actually does in a method that you can defend. You need to contextualize your link arguments. I'm not going to give you a lot of lead way on generic masking links.

I think that if you are reading more than 5-6 off that you are just doing too much most of the time. You should spend more time burying them in the block on case rather than reading 4 different CP's that all have next to no way to actually solve the aff and are just baiting them into undercovering something so you can go for it because you were just faster. That just leads to boring debates.

If you have any more question feel free to email me or just ask before round.

Kansas Wesleyan University Director of Debate and Forensics

Current Coach: I have several Private Coaching and Tutoring students in speech and debate :) But I'm a principal at McPherson HS now.

Former Coach: Salina South HS, Abilene HS, El Dorado HS, Buhler HS

College Competitor: NPDA and NFA LD

High School Policy 4 Years (I debated in the glory days of Champ Division. I’m getting old.)

I'm just going to say this up top: Flowing is literally the most important skill in debate. If you think you don't need to flow, or that a speech doc is a replacement for flowing you are wrong. If I'm flowing (and I will be) you should be too. A speech doc is not a replacement for a flow and often means that you miss valuable line by line analysis, logical arguments, theory, and can answer cards that weren't read into the round.

I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round. (That means speed is fine in most cases. You will know if I can't understand you or can’t keep up. I’ll put my pen down. You may want to look up and check if you’re real speedy or at least have your partner check.)

I’m a fan of following the line by line, so you should tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and more importantly tell me why it matters (Impact Calc).I believe in the Toulmin model of argumentation and think that your evidence should matter and be of good quality with data and warrants and you should be able to articulate that information. Extending Claims or Tags isn’t enough to win an argument. Blocks are cool, but you should make an effort to directly clash with your opponents blocks as well. I also think that you should have an in round vision and that you and your partner should work to ensure that vision flows through the round to the end and that I get a completed picture at the end.

I'm not predisposed to certain types of arguments in a round as liking/disliking them more than others so I will try to listen with an open mind to the arguments that you make. You should also probably not make the decision to drastically alter your style or what you do in round based on my paradigm. I want to see what you do well, how you do it, not what you think I want to see or something you aren’t comfortable with.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

Framework:This is important. You need to give me a frame for the round and win that debate or I will more than likely default to policy maker. However, do not attempt to frame the debate in way that eliminates nearly all ground for one side of the debate. I probably believe that ground should be equitable and predictable for both aff and neg.

Theory:I will listen to it. I will weigh it. Tell me why it matters and have clear demonstrable abuse. Be able to articulate the impact and why Theory matters. I also think that to win a theory debate you probably have to give me more than fragment or single sentence. I need an argument and time to write it down, and if you think it’s important enough to merit a ballot, then I expect you to spend some time on the argument.

Topicality:I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. Too many teams use it as part of a game with little strategic value or execution. A good T debate is a thing of beauty. I can default to competing interps or reasonability and be convinced either way depending on the debate, but I likely default to competing interps unless I have clearly articulated reasons not to. Please do work on the Standards/Voter level. And for the love of debate, if you are winning this argument and the aff isn’t topical please go for T in the 2NR…

Counterplans:I think they are strategic. I'm good with Topical CP's, Advantage Cp's, Smart PIC’s, Multiple CPs, etc. Delay Cp’s aren’t my favorite, but you can win that debate. I probably believe that all arguments are at the core conditional, but I will listen to debate on Status Theory and evaluate what happens in the round. I prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s and I don’t think that CP solves better is a net benefit.

Kritiks:Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team.I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And smart analysis of evidence.

What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time. 3. Don’t Clip Cards.

1.       Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

Debated in high school (early 1970s)

Frequent Debate judge

2.       I have judged 23 years of policy debate.

I have judged under 10 CX rounds this season.

3.       List any tournaments you have judged at this season:

Hutchinson

4.       Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Equal weight for stock issues, policy maker and speaking skills. This is a communication activity, after all.

5.  RATE OF DELIVERY 

Slow. Debate is a communication activity.

6.  QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS 

Prefer few but well developed arguments.

7.  COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES 

While it is a communications activity, issue resolution is important.

8.  TOPICALITY

T is relatively important. T args, though, MUST be structured properly.

9.  COUNTERPLANS

Don't like hearing them every round. States counterplan is old, used every year with a domestic topic. Avoid it.

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

I appreciate that you've read a book. I don't like book reports in debate. Avoid them.

13. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

I love DAs. But DAs must have specific links and brinks and clear NON-NUCLEAR impacts. Again, structure is critical. So, no, I'm not a fan of generics.

 14. CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Find arguments and stick with them. Avoid conditionals. 

15. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Yes, sometimes we have to go there. But there is no "book of rules" for debate. Back in the 1970s, you didn't present plan until 2AC. Yes, I'd accept that today, despite "theory" arguments to the contrary.

16.  Optional: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses, add those comments in the space below:

Call mine the "Grumpy Old Man" paradigm. I love structure. Don't make me work. The more you force me to work, the less you'll like the outcome.

I am real world judge who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will NOT weigh nuclear impacts. Debate remains a communication activity. If I can’t flow the argument because of speed, it does not exist. Watch me.

I will enforce KSHSAA Rule 52. Rudeness has no place in debate.

Stock issues/policymaker/communication skills are of equal importance to me. Don’t make me work. Please sign post and properly label arguments. Tell me where to flow arguments. “And” is not structure. “Observation 1 Inherency. A: “ etc. If you don’t tell me where to flow something, you may not like where I flow it.

And, no, I won't weigh "performance debate" rounds. Automatic loss for the team that starts it.

The TL;DR version of my paradigm: Much like in life, in debate, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. I default to policy maker. Make my job easier, and I'm more likely to vote for you.

General judging stuff: No handshakes please, germs are icky. Introducing yourself is fine and appreciated though. My concentration face is apparently very close to my angry face so please don't freak out if I look mad, I'm hopefully just concentrating hard. I'm not huge on oral kritiks outside of world schools debate, so unless there's something I think is absolutely necessary to discuss, I'm probably not going to for the sake of keeping the tournament running fast.

Semi-retired assistant coach for Hutch, been doing this forever. I'm pretty out of the loop this year due to lots of factors, I've only watched a handful of rounds this season, so please don't expect me to know everything about everything on this topic, making assumptions is probably going to make me grumpy. Seriously. Rank me above a lay judge, but I'm not as hip and with it as I used to be.

Delivery stuff: Rate of speed preferred is Moderate. I don't need you to be so slow like you're talking to Grandma Ethel, but I really don't enjoy fast debates and don't have the energy for it. Rule of thumb: if you're gasping for air like a fish with asthma, you're going too fast. I need to be able to understand the words you're saying, and things like tags and cites are extremely important to make sure that they are clearly said. If I can't understand, I don't flow. I won't interrupt the round, but it will be painfully obvious if I'm not flowing. 1AR I have a little more sympathy towards rate of delivery, but it still needs to be understandable. Also, everyone needs to signpost arguments so I know where we're at on the flow, PLEASE.

When paneled with one or more lay judges, my paradigm should be treated like a lay judge. I believe in making debate accessible to all backgrounds and experience levels, and making less experienced judges feel intimidated or confused by the activity is bad for everyone, so when choosing your strategy, don't throw away the lay judge unless you're also throwing away my ballot.

Also! Roadmaps! I would like one, please, because I don't typically ask for a flash of your speech. Your roadmap should be a sentence, not a paragraph. "T, Federalism, Advantage 2" is a roadmap. "First, I'm going to start off attacking Topicality. Then, I will read a disadvantage on blahblahblah..." is a speech. I'll start the timer if your roadmap turns into a speech. Did I mention how I also love debaters who signpost?

Timing: PLEASE time your speeches. I'm usually running a timer or stopwatch but it may not always sound when you've hit the time limit so it would be super if you're responsible about that. Yes, you can use your phone as a timer if it's on airplane mode, if the tournament and your opponents are fine with it.

Arguments:

Affs: Affs should defend the resolution and be topical. Not a fan of performance/k affs. I'll listen but you're probably not getting my ballot. Please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, don't read me something you pulled directly from OpenEvidence with little to no modification, don't be that team.

On case/stock issues: I feel like too often, negative teams get too wrapped up in the off that the on case gets ignored and we're having generic boring arguments. I enjoy case debate, but there needs to be impacts in round by the negative, so don't expect me to vote neg because you focused on inherency and solvency the entire round with no case turns or any reason other than you attacked their stock issues and the table analogy.

T: I love good topicality arguments and some level of topicality theory. T ran for the sake of running T make me sad. If you understand topicality and have good interpretations that are more than fill in the blank on the shell, I will happily vote on topicality and will do so plenty of times this year.

DAs: The more specific the link, the better, but I also understand the nature of the topic means that there may not be specific links- so give me analysis to show why they apply. Meh on terminal impact scenarios.

Kritiks: Please don't, unless there is actual, legitimate in round abuse/impact that you can prove. Someone unapologetically using _____-ist language and you arguing why that's bad in the framework of the K and the real, actual impacts, and using understandable language is going to be more compelling than you reading "capitalism bad" without really understanding it. The amount of analysis and explanation that is given to me in rounds has never been enough for me to feel like I can understand your points. Generic link kritiks that implicate the topic or large areas and can be run in like, 99% of your rounds are not the kinds of arguments I am going to vote on. That being said, if your coach is okay with it and you want to concede the round to the other team to pursue your K position in your side's first speech and have a discussion about your position, I'm willing to sit and listen/participate in the discussion for a reasonable (45 minutes-1hr) amount of time.

Counterplans: CPs need to have a competitive purpose in round and have more to them than just a pointless timesuck. I'm okay with them, just expect me to be real grumpy if you're reading states CP with generic links you pulled off OpenEvidence. These days I'm neutral about condo/uncondo, but I'll listen to/vote on aff theory on conditionality if they run it. In general, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Generic spec arguments: ew.

Impacts: Everyone needs to emphasize them and everyone needs to have them. Without impacts, I have no reason to vote for you. Mehhhhh to terminal impact scenarios, rounds where I'm forced to vote based on body counts are lame. I see a lot a bad rounds where I have to default aff because the negative fails to have any substantial reason to not vote for plan. Also your rebuttals really really need impact calc.

Theory: I can enjoy a little bit of theory if it's well thought out and doesn't dominate the round.

And finally, don't be a jerk. It really upsets me and makes me try to find any reason to vote against you even if you're the best debater ever. There's no place for racism/sexism/ableism/all those other -isms in this activity.

Feel free to ask me specific questions if you have them, and good luck to all!

Experience:

High School- Hutchinson High School, 3 years Policy Debate, 4 years Congress and Speech

College- Wiley College, 3 years speech and debate. National Runner Up in IPDA Debate, multiple national out-rounds in platform events.

Overall:

I believe debate is a game- and an exclusionary one at that. That being said, I go into all formats of debate looking for the same things: logos, ethos, and pathos. While I understand the "rules" of debate, for me, preference will be given to sound logic and communication skills over other things that may have been acquired through resources unavailable to others.

This is my attempt to do my part in making debate more inclusive.

Policy Specific Philosophy:

1. I don't value speed. You don't have to put on your lay voice, but no spreading

2. Signposting and organization. If I don't know what's happening or where something goes, I'll stop writing.

3. Impact calc and solvency tend to be my biggest voters.

4. But I'm willing to listen and vote on anything as long as you convince me I should.

5. If you run a K, just make sure it applies.

6. Any comments that are oppressive in any nature will get you knocked down, and get an email sent to your coach. ;)

Happy debating!

I debated 4 years at Hutchinson High School and debated for a little bit in college at KCKCC 14-15; Currently assistant coaching for the 5th year.

Background: I ran exclusively policy arguments during high school, in college then I switched the arguments about identity, non traditional ("performance" if you want to call it that), I.E- Latina knowledge production, queerness,and womanism. I am familiar with lots of different arguments from all sides of the spectrum so feel free to run what you will in front of me I will listen to anything- Do you.. Like I said I've done debate on the policy and critical sides of the spectrum.

Yes! I want to be on the email chain: hhsjuarez14@gmail.com

T: As far as topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate?? That seems like a pretty steep punishment. Give a reason and not just a generic basic reason prove to me that there's a real impact in the round

I expect you to make comparative impact claims, Don't just do a small extensions of cards and think that's good enough b/c more than likely it's not good enough to a/t the argument. I expect you to explain what your evidence (assuming you choose to read evidence/ if not explain why your argument is important to the debate.) and most importantly I want you to tell me what matters in the debate and what I should vote on or frame the debate on how the debate should be judged on.

Link work in general: if you have bad link stories- It will be hard for you to win the round, you will have to put in work on why your link matters and why it should be weighed in the debate but at the end of the day I like/ look for good link cards in the round.

CP: I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence are bad and while and if you want to win on it you'll have to do more than just read your blocks.

DA: In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important weigh it out and remember good link cards

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Things you should know/ if you care:

Speed: I'm okay with speed just be clear or I'll yell out clear.

I will vote you down on speaks if you are blatantly offensive/ Rude for no reason I don't want to see/ hear it.

I like hearing historical examples are great ways to contextualize your arguments and show off your intelligence, it will impress me and help me get on board with your argument. Let me see what you know!

Arguments I don't like/want to hear is racism good/ not real, rape good, etc. Just being honest. It will also largely implicate your speaker points.

If you have any questions just ask me!

​I've judged debate for ​seven years, with limited exposure to the current resolution.  I can follow speed to an extent, but if it gets to the point where it doesn't make sense, you'll lose me. I tend to vote on the most logical arguments.  However, I'll vote on anything that is made clear and understandable. 

Former high school debater, current assistant coach.  ​I've judged debate for ​many years.

First of all, I hate kritiques.  You don't play soccer with football pads and hockey sticks--the K is like that. Don't even think about running one.  If you do, you will immediately lose the round and I'll take a nap.

Secondly, I'm really tired of people trying to speak quickly and mumbling/shouting/stuttering their way through an 8 minute speech.  Just don't.  If you are trying to win by reading a lot of words on a lot of cards, you're not debating--you're speaking.  Generally badly.

I want to hear ARGUMENTS.  If you don't understand what you, your partner, or your opponents are saying, you will put yourself in a really, really bad position.  If you just read evidence at me, you're not thinking.  I'm not interested in hearing your great card (that I've heard in every other round today) without an explanation as to why that specific card is relevant to your argument.  And reading tags isn't enough...that's just more words that you didn't come up with.

Oh, and running 5 T arguments is lame and boring.

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Update 2021: Haven't judged a round all season!!! Proceed with caution. Literally googled the resolution yesterday.

Email chain: ivanmoya007@gmail.com

Debate Background: 4 years policy in Kansas DCI circuit. 4 years Parli at Washburn University. Former Assistant Coach at Garden City, Kansas (2 years). Out in the real world now as a Prosecutor. Probably don't know much about the topic. It's been a minute since I've had to listen to a round.

Overview: I try to be reasonably deferential to both team's wishes to debate to the style they feel most comfortable with. I will listen to and evaluate almost anything. I consider myself a traditional high-flow judge. I’ll default to a net benefits paradigm unless you specify an alternative framework. Speed isn’t a problem however I’ll only yell “clear” twice if I can’t understand you. I will stress a second time, its been over three years since I judged on a regular basis, so I might not be up to date with all the cool, hip debate arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality/Framework-I’m a big fan of the T debate. I give the aff a decent amount of leeway when it comes to reasonability. If you go for T, the procedural debate needs to substantively articulate the abuse (whether real or potential) that happens in the round. How does the T interact with your other arguments?!

The neg needs to do work on the standards debate beyond “the aff steals our ground”. The 2NR needs to spend a decent amount on T if you want me to vote for it. I’m the minority of people that do believe that T is inherently a voting issue. Tell me why that’s not the case, aff.

Counterplans -Counterplans are fine. Make them either textually/functionally competitive. I’ll vote for most types of CP’s but there’s a few types that start behind for me (Consult CPs).

Disadvantages- I hate that I'm a sucker for Politics DAs. In general, the difference between a good DA to a bad one is that a good one has a fleshed out bottom half that constructs a timely, and nuanced internal link with a clear impact. I don’t think enough DA’s do that.

Neg team, how does the DA interact with the aff case beyond the link level? Does triggering the DA problematize the coherency of the aff?

Kritiks-I’m down for a K debate. I enjoy listening to them and truly believe in their potential to open up a meaningful dialogue about real world policies and the debate community writ large. A big let-down is when the link level of the K is weak. Crystalize the actual reason you chose to critique something within the round beyond reading a card that says “cap bad”.

I am not a walking encyclopedia. I don’t know all there is to know about Bastaille, Baudrillard, Zizek, Object Ontology, etc. I’ll keep up on the flow level but keep a coherent narrative and simple thesis. Explain the narrative of the K and expand on it. I don’t assume that the K is an apriori issue. I’ll evaluate the impacts of the Aff against it unless I’m told not to. Impact calc is very important. Keep the flow of the K in a neat order for me.

Theory-Just as with Topicality, I’ll usually default some sort of reasonability-type argument (i.e reject the arg not the team). However I’ll vote on condo/dispo bad stuff if you want me to. You just need to do a lot of work on this if you are going for it in the 2NR.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Maize High and had a rather successful career there. Notable accomplishments would be breaking to out-rounds at Nationals and qualifying to DCI. I have not done college debate, but I do now coach for Maize.

Speed Preference: I'de prefer slow rounds, however, I know that people enjoy and rely on spreading. If you do spread then I really appreciate AND between cards and NEXT between flows. I will shout "clear" once per person. I expect to be able to distinguish words in both your tags and the body of your evidence. Even if it's a fast round, I don't want you to spread through theory because those types of arguments (T, Perms, Role of the Ballot, Condition theory, etc...) are won and lost on the strength of your own thoughts and argumentation. There generally isn't shorthand to flow on these arguments so I would like you to slow down here.

Argument Preference: There is not an argument (that I know of) that I won't listen to. I will never vote you down immediately or stop listening just because you decide to try something weird or something that I dislike. That being said, there are some arguments that I prefer over others. When I debated I ran counter-plans, disadvantages such as politics, and case arguments most frequently. In Theory I'm looking for you to think through and explain why one thing is bad and the other is good. For Kritiks I really want specific links and solid alt solvency explanations.

Additional Comments: I do not believe that evidence is necessary for every argument. I don't mind questions.

I coached debate for 34 years, most of them at Valley Center HS.  I am definitely a policymaker and will evaluate debates according to that paradigm.

I have been out of coaching for several years, so my flowing skills aren't what they once were. The quality of your evidence is crucial to me, and I abhor powertagging. Speed is fine as long as it is comprehensible.

I will certainly listen to all arguments, and counterplans are fine. I'm not a big fan of conditional arguments; other theory is okay, but remember that at heart I am a policymaker.

I appreciate debaters who evaluate the strength of arguments and don't just tell me to pull an argument without explaining why.

Finally, I am not a fan of rudeness and dislike being told that I "have to vote" on arguments. 

I am open to any arguments being read. It’s the debaters job to set the framework for how I should evaluate the round. If not, I default to an impact debate. Run what you’re best at and most comfortable with. Don’t run a kritik if you can’t thoroughly explain it.

Links (DAs, kritiks, theory) need to be valid/not too generic. Articulate your links.

Neg needs offense to be competitive. Don’t run T unless it’s going to be well organized, even if it’s just as a time suck.

I love really good impact calc.

Go as fast as you want but you need to signpost or else I stop flowing. 

Added note (2018): This paradigm is slightly over two years old now; so please if you are confused feel free to ask clarification questions about my paradigm and how I view debate before the round

Years debate in high school: 4 at newton high school (Space topic, Transportation, Economic engagement, Oceans)

Years debate in college: I debated three years in college (Military reduction, Climate policy, Healthcare)

General overview: Honestly you should run whatever you are best at. I personally prefer kritikal rounds but if your bread and butter is a state CP with ptx da then go for it. I will flow your arguments and vote according to the impact framing that you give me. if you don't give me any impact framing then everyone will be disappointed in my decision, including me . I will try my best to limit any personal bias that I have against arguments although topicality is probably the place where most of my bias exists

Things I felt like writing about:

Importance of the resolution? That's for you to decide. The 1ac is a thing; if the negative wants to read framework and give me reasons why the 1ac should have been a fundamental defense of the resolution then I will listen to it. I think there are reasons to why the topic should be followed verbatim and I think there are reasons why the AFF should not have to defend the topic

Counterplans- In my mind anything that is not the AFF is negative ground. I don't know if you could convince me otherwise.

Kritiks- Even though I prefer kritikal arguments assume I know nothing about your argument when explaining the link, impact, and alternative. If I hear "the lack" (or whatever lingo your kritik has) twenty times in the block I will assume it's important but would feel more comfortable voting for you if you explained it to me. I think when explained correctly link of ommission arguments can work wonderfully but they also have the potential to be awful, it's sort of 50/50 so you should have some links to the mechanism of the AFF too.

Theory- theory can be useful. Im not prone to RVIs but ill vote on them if your offense is related to the in round abuse and youve effectively proven why a neg/aff ballot is good (ask if this doesnt make sense). Dont make your theory debates too top heavy, the debate is at the impact level not the link. I dislike teams who spend a minute on the interp and then rush through standards saying it is key to fairness and then they move on to the next flow

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 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.

Curtis Shephard

Email Chain - cshephard@usd266.com

I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality

It's all about the game and how you play it.
All about control and if you can take it.
All about your debt and if you can pay it.
It's all about pain and who's gonna make it.

You've got your rules and your religion
All designed to keep you safe
But when rules start getting broken
You start questioning your faith
I have a voice that is my savior
Hates to love and loves to hate
I have the voice that has the knowledge
And the power to rule your fate

Um, it's gon' be, what it's gon' be
Five pounds of courage buddy, base tan pants with a gold tee
Ugh, it's a war dance and victory step
Of all stances, a gift and you insist it's my rep

I am cold like December snow
I have carved out this soul made of stone
And I will drag you down and sell you out
Embraced by the darkness, I'm losing the light
Encircled by demons, I fight What have I become, now that I've betrayed
Everyone I've ever loved, I pushed them all away
And I have been a slave to the Judas in my mind
Is there something left for me to save
In the wreckage of my life, my life

The Dr. will see you now

​I've judged debate for ​over 15 years, with limited exposure to the current resolution.  I can follow speed, but don't like "super fast" if that makes sense. I don't like kritiks, but I'll follow them and vote on them if that's the emphasis in the round.  I'll vote on anything that is proven to be the best option.

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.

This is my 10th year of debate, I debated four in high school and four in college. I debate in Kansas, I did both policy and K stuff. I have debated four years for Emporia State, where I did some policy debate (mostly space) my first year. Since then I have done kritikal debate. I am not a K hack, reading a K will not get my ballot, cap key to space is always a fun debate. I have read from many different literature bases so I am familiar with many arguments, however, you need to explain your buzzwords and not assume I know what you are talking about.

I think that debate is what you make it if you can prove that what you did is an argument and it was good I'll vote for it. Play music, read poetry, refuse to speak, tell a story, read a genealogy, dance, act out a story, play a video, do some art stuff, make noises, read a million cards, read a heg adv. Whatever you wanna do, just do it well. I can keep up with up most everything you wanna do, speed is fine, but if I cannot understand what you are saying I will say clear once, then I flow what I can understand.

Something that I put very high is the quality of evidence that is read in debate, I will hold you to my standard of quality of evidence which is higher than average in my opinion. One of my biggest complaints from doing debate was that the majority of teams read poor evidence, but just read a lot of them. So I will emphasize that in front of me you should either read quality evidence or read something else. I don't think you have to read any evidence, but if you choose to read evidence you should make sure that all the warrants that you will be extending from that piece of evidence are highlighted. This does not mean all the examples and explanation, but if you only have claims highlighted or highlight in such a way that your evidence does not say anything or even worse does not say what you say it says, your speaker points will be hurt at least if not cost you the round. I will vote for the team that wins, but reading bad evidence and winning in front of me may still result in lower speaker points. You should treat this as a disclaimer for me reading your evidence and deciding the round on if you have misused, misrepresented, or even lied about your evidence. My threshold for being told to read evidence and decide the round on its quality is obviously very low.

I like good jokes in debates, so make good ones.

Telling me where to vote, how to vote, and why to vote is the most certain thing you can do to get my ballot. As a judge I try to imitate Chris Loghry and Juan Gracia-Lugo more than anyone else, in my opinion, they both strive to evaluate debates as fairly and even handily as possible, thus I will try to have a similar mindset to them.

I will not vote for arguments that are just blatantly oppressive or violent (e.g. don't say racism good or not real).

Any questions email me at alex.c.turley@gmail.com

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.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.

I debated for 4 years in high school, none in college. My husband is a debate coach so I am around debate all season. However, this is the first tournament I have judged all season.

I will vote on any stock issue, including Topicality.

I hate Kritiks, please don't try to disguise it as something else, I am not an idiot.

I also do not really like counter-plans unless they are really well explained and ran correctly.

I will listen to non-unique disadvantages and I think clash/speaking are both important when I vote.

My main thing is tell me what to vote for and why, sign post, tell me where to flow things.

I can do some speed, but if you have to gasp for air you are going to fast and need to slow down. I am a pharmacist so your health is what I care about.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.