Congressional Debate--I expect your speeches to address the major issues addressed by the legislation or the concerns raised by the assumed passage of the legislation. I look for speeches that are continuing to advance the debate, not just re-hash points already brought up by previous speakers. Please follow parliamentary procedure. It really is not that hard.

POs should keep the chamber moving efficiently and professionally. Maximizing speech time and cross-x time plays a huge role in my evaluation of a presiding officer. I also expect much consistency from a PO in rulings and recognition of speakers.

Lastly, have fun. This is a fun event. Use humor where appropriate. Enjoy your time in these chambers.

Policy Debate--I'm that judge you wish you did not get. I am old school and I don't like speed.

inactive

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

Former assistant coach for Lawrence High for two years. Debated at Olathe South for 4 years.

Updated 12/8/23

Please add me to the email chain. (dorrell.kathryn@gmail.com)

General Preferences

Do what you do best. There are very few arguments that I hate on a deep level or am in love with. I'm usually more comfortable with policy arguments but am familiar with K literature.

I've only judged sporadically this season, so starting off a under your top speed and working up to it would be helpful.

For me, your first priority should be on ensuring you have solid analysis in the debate. You can have the best evidence and arguments that could truly be deciding factors, but if the rebuttals consist of you just extending a bunch of cards or shallow one-line summaries of analytics from the constructives, you're not going to win. Tell me how the argument functions and why it's true. Without this work, that argument doesn't really exist on the flow to me.

More than anything please be nice. Snarkiness is awesome but there's a line between funny and just mean. Mistakes happen and I believe this is a fantastic space to educate each other. However, blatant sexism, racism, and any other -isms will not be tolerated. If in doubt, don't say it in the round, and let's have a conversation after.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can matter very little. On the flip side, if you have an amazing case that you pull through and defend you can afford to risk linking to a DA. That doesn't mean don't run any off-case or feel free to undercover a DA, but having a great case debate can be very beneficial.

DAs: DAs are great. If they're generic, that's fine. If they're case specific, even better. That being said, explain your internal link chain. Don't just spend every speech telling me why extinction is awful.

CPs: I think CPs are fun, but they do have to be competitive. I won't do the work for the aff, but if they perm it and it's very clearly not competitive, it'll be hard for you to come back from that.

Ks: Like I said, I don't have a super in-depth knowledge of specific kritiks but I do have a decent background in a good portion of philosophy. If you explain the basic thesis of the K, we should be good. That's not an excuse to use a bunch of weirdly long words that sound "kritiky" and then assume I know what you meant. Just like any other argument, give me warrants and analysis. Please tell me what the alt does! I'm all for unique alternatives, but I need to understand exactly what is going to happen.

K Affs/ Non-traditional Affs: I'm definitely open to non-traditional affirmatives, but I do tend to believe the affirmative has to be in the direction of the topic and have some kind of plan/ advocacy statement. What exactly that looks like is up to you, I just need to understand what exactly you're advocating for. If you aren't in the direction of the topic/ you reject the resolution, I'll definitely listen and keep an open mind. However, it tends to be pretty easy for negative teams to win on framework.

I haven't judged many of non-traditional affs so I can't tell you if I lean more towards framework or the aff, but I like both so you have a good shot either way. For framework, you can definitely argue that they have to relate to the topic or have a stated advocacy, but saying they should be excluded entirely is not going to go over well.

Theory: Not my favorite thing, but I'll always listen to it. It gets really annoying when seven different blippy theory arguments are read and then because the aff didn't respond to the sixth standard on you fifth theory argument that you blew through at the speed of light the entire round ends up coming down to that argument. A couple are totally fine, but more than that gets confusing.

Topicality: I like T, especially when it plays in with other arguments. It's always a voter, never a reverse-voter.

Framing: It seems like it's becoming more and more common to have pretty extensive impact framing debates. That's totally cool and I think it's a really interesting debate to be had. However, just reading a card that says probability first or extinction first doesn't make it true. Just like any other argument, give me the warrant and analysis.

Overall, run what you're good at and what you like. Make it the kind of round you want to have and I'll do my best to conform to it. With the exception of a few things, most of the stuff on here is pretty flexible if you explain a different perspective. Please ask me any other questions you have!

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Fourth year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com

Top-Level: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable. Use content warnings before starting speeches and put them in speech docs when applicable. Being mean to your partner is an extremely easy way to lose ranks/quals.

Speed: I think debates are better for everyone when you slow down for tags/cites/theory. Other than that, speak at whatever speed you like while still retaining clarity. Speeding into an incomprehensible slurry in the text of the card will at best dock your speaker points and at worst severely cost you on the flow; I am not going to just flow your speech doc's tags, I am going to flow what you say. I will say clear if necessary. *This is ESPECIALLY true in a virtual debate. If you are reading at the same speed you would in-person, you will be incomprehensible.

Everything below are just my preferences. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as they're good.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I think teams should be topical. If your aff isn't topical, you should tell me why your aff is better for debate than a topical one, rather than why topicality is bad. You should be as specific as possible about your offense, on both sides. Don't bother with your impact turns.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args, except that conditionality is good. That doesn't mean don't read condo bad if you want to, you just can't read and barely extend your block shell and expect me to have any interest in voting on it. Your argument should make a broader statement on debate rather than a specific objection to something in-round.

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: The link debate is probably more important than anything else in a DA. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in.

Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with any particular type of counterplan, but Aff teams should probably be reading a lot more CP theory than I usually see. I wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "do both," and I especially wish more teams actually utilized their perms effectively past the block.

Kritiks: Don't assume that I'm familiar with all terms of art/authors. I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not very compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. I feel like most K debates I see are incredibly weak on the Alt debate on both sides. Links of omission are not links. Evidence here matters immensely. I feel like teams take each other's K cards at face-value way too often. A lot of these cards on both sides of any K are total gibberish, you should be pointing that out to me.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps. I default to believing the Aff's role is to endorse an inherent resolution-based advocacy that solves for significant harms, and the Negative's role is to dispute the Aff on the basis of any of those terms, or by expressing the significant harms of the Aff. I feel like many of my decisions end up coming down to the fact that teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read your cool interp block your squad wrote 7 years ago and call it a day. Your framework lays the foundation for how I'm supposed to evaluate the round. Don't let the other team do that for you.

Megan Niermann

They/them/their's

Suburban LD in high school (2014 MSHAA state champion)

One year CX at UMKC, one year CX at JCCC (2018 CEDA quarterfinalist but also couldn't break at regionals so evaluate how you will)

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: niermannmegan@gmail.com

All of my policy experience in college has been with the K (ableism, queerness/gender, whiteness, Lacanian psychoanalysis, capitalism) but towards the end of my career I started going for framework a lot more. I'll break things down more below but I can be high on your pref sheet no matter what you read with the exception of teams that need an extremely techy judge with a ton of topic knowledge. I am a better judge for you if you explain things for me in a big picture way using debate language (competitive/not competitive, impact calc, permutation, etc) instead of relying on my ability to flow all of the warrants of your politics DA and to vote on ev quality comparison.

TL;DR: I definitely WILL vote on the CP/DA but I don't often participate in, judge, or coach those debates so I will need to be coddled a little bit.

Specific positions below (but also I'm barely out and reserve the right to change my mind on any and all of these things):

T/FWK: I really enjoy judging, coaching, and participating in these debates. Lately I've judged some rounds without clearly defined voters---that is not a good way to win the debate. I am rarely persuaded by "T/FWK is oppressive" offense unless it's the VAST majority of the 2AC answer strategy, but when I am persuaded it's usually because the neg has decided to go for a fairness impact instead of going for education. If there's not a T version of the aff that probably means it's...just egregiously not T. I do not presume against affs that do not have a tie to the resolution.

Theory: I went for/won on theory args a lot. I will vote on theory args and probably err aff more than a lot of judges do on these questions, especially condo. If I'm your judge and you're neg I would try to avoid perf con.

Disads: As mentioned above, despite being in the activity for nine years, I don't have a great grasp on DAs in terms of reading them OR answering them. DA debates for me will really be decided by whoever is the better technical debater in the round I'm judging because I don't have enough topic knowledge to feel comfortable evaluating the truth level of claims. Please please please don't bet the round on me being able to evaluate the quality of your evidence. I very rarely will call for ev.

CPs: See theory---I am easily persuaded that a lot of CPs (50 states, consult, agent, PICs) are cheat-y. That said, I've read a lot of word PICs and refuse to feel shame. Please go for any/all CP in front of me as long as you are ready to answer these theoretical questions. Because of my inexperience in evaluating DA debates you will have a better time winning a CP 2NR strat if you have a solvency deficit to the aff and/or a net benefit that is independent from a disad you're reading. I will presume that the status quo is always an option for the negative unless the aff makes an argument about it.

Ks: The vast majority of debates that I participate in, judge, and coach are one-off K debates. I'm familiar with most common K literature but have spent most of my time reading/answering identity arguments (disability, queerness, transness, whiteness and/or anti-Blackness). I find myself often persuaded by permuations and no link/link turn articulations. Don't be afraid to go for the K without an alt like a linear DA in front of me! If you're answering the K in front of me I would not heg your bets on alt solvency; I am rarely persuaded that this is important in a world where the negative is winning that your aff is unethical.

By all means, ask me other questions if you have any! I was often described as hostile as a debater but as a coach/judge I think my ultimate role is to be an educator about the skills in the game of debate.

I have been the head coach at Blue Valley High school for the last 28 years. Before that, I debated in college at the University of Missouri Kansas City and in High School at Shawnee Mission West.

I am primarily a policy maker as a judge. I will filter all arguments through the lens of what policy I'm voting for and if it's the best policy on a cost-benefits analysis. Kritiks should also be filtered through this lens unless the team issuing it presents really compelling reasons why my policy lens should be suspended. I have a high threshold for the Negative on Topicality. The plan has to show clear abuse to the negative or future negatives through its interpretation in order for me to be persuaded on topicality. I would rather see counterplans run non-conditionally since affirmative plans rarely get to be conditional. However, this could change based on who convinces me in the round.

Stylistically, I still feel like debate should have some element of persuasion to it. You should be able to speak extemporaneously at me at times and not just read off your laptop. Talk to me about why you deserve my ballot through the issues presented. I hate open cross examinations because I feel like they tend to make one of the debaters look weak and another look domineering. I can listen to a fairly fast round but I don't like speed being used when it is not necessary to the the round. I should be able to understand your evidence as it is read to me and only have to look at it if I need a deeper understanding or context. Be polite and be efficient in sharing files so we're not all abusing prep time.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

I've been coaching speech and debate at SME for 20 years (15 as head coach and 5 as an assistant). I debated open at SME, where I also went to high school.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making paradigm, but I'm open to other frameworks. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear. I'm not extremely familiar with K lit so I'd be cautious to read a K in front of me, but I'm open.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks.

I prefer speed at a moderate to quick pace as long as you're clear.

I want clear link stories and strong impact calc! I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues.

Please sign-post clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments.

Ethos is important so please be respectful and kind to each other, and present yourselves in a convincing, persuasive manner!