elibrennan@gmail.com YES, I'd like to be on the email chain (or i guess we may just use Zoom to transfer speech docs).

Evidence: I am happy, very happy, to prefer the team with the better evidence on key questions, you just need to explain why your evidence is superior: be clear about which evidence you want me to read, why I will find it superior, and why that matters for the overall strategic situation of the debate.I haven't been reading much evidence at all after debates because the approach to extending the evidence lacks substantive warranting. In those situations, I prefer to just compare warrants provided by the debaters- to see who did the better _debating_. All that said, I really do like that policy debate can create stable strategic advantages for better research and better interpretation of that research.

Framework: I'm sympathetic to Framework arguments mostly in situations where the Aff. is apparently trying to avoid substantive clash. Many debaters who specialize in, or rely on, framework arguments fail to convince me that they could not have anticipated, or developed answers to, the Affirmative's arguments. Developing substantive responses to widely different kinds of arguments seems like something we should each be good at. I often sense that debaters are just not interested in literature they claim to have been unable to anticipate. All that said, if you have a solid set of answers to the questions our community brings to the topic, and your opponent makes it unreasonably difficult/impossible to engage in those debates, please by all means go for framework. Winning the quality of education component is usually the key to that ballot for me.

K Debate: I like policy debate and critical debate. Do what you do best, and I'll follow. Adapting your blocks to the specifics of the Aff is the easiest way to improve your chances. For the Aff to weigh their advantages against a K, defending the knowledge claims is more reliable than theory arguments (for my ballot). A lot of teams are letting alternatives off the hook, which creates a tough debate for the Aff. Putting both offensive and defensive pressure on the Alternative is a more robust strategy, in my view, than a framework argument giving theoretical reasons I should ignore evidence against the Aff perspective.

Theory: A lot of theory debates are messy because debaters overly rely on their blocks. It gets blippy and lacks the kind of comparisons that make ballots reliable. I do understand, and am sympathetic to, theory positions that are necessary to keep the rest of the debate under control for your side. You often end up needing to go "all in" if the substantive debate gets out of control. Just be sure to debate "access" to the terminal impact of education in a clear and comparative way. I'm probably more sympathetic to process counterplans and solvency advocate arguments than most of my colleagues, in that I like these debates to be resolved with the best research, rather than the best spin.

Global advice: Think actively during the whole debate, find a way to create and enjoy moments of excellence, and respect your opponents (or at least the people they could be). Make whatever arguments you feel/think best. Take the time to explain your argument most comprehensively at the places you are most vulnerable- always contextualizing one step further than your opponent (they say 'purple', you say 'sun-drenched lavender').

Most of my decisions result from setting the 2nr against the 2ar, controlling for new args (esp. new 2ar args), checking evidence, defaulting to meta-arguments (comparisons) from debaters, and then imposing (i hate it as much as you do) meta-arguments where necessary.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before, during, or after the debate.

*Sidequests: +.2 Speaker points on offer for the sickest burn on opposing authors.

Zachary Brown

He/Him/His

zrbrown@gmail.com
Updated: Sept 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.2.5

Name: Quynh Dang

School: Goddard High School

Years of Experience: 3

# of Rounds on this Year’s Topic: 25

Follow me on the gram: @quynhdangs

Email to contact me with questions: dang.quynh0506@gmail.com

How should debaters approach CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES?

Speakers should convey their approach clearly. signpost. The delivery of the speech should be loud and audible. Include me in the flash/email chain.

How should debaters approach REBUTTAL SPEECHES?

Rebuttals should be logical and well explained. don’t my time and give a 10-second rebuttal. this is not why we came here for. you are not learning anything by doing that. I like analytical arguments and impact calculus. Voting and framework are also appreciated.

How should debaters approach EVIDENCE?

Don’t clip evidence. that’s the worse. If the other team can maximize your font and use it against you, I’m voting for the other team

How should a debater run ON CASE arguments?

Solvency and harms are my favorite stock issues because they create a good debate. if you are going to run topicality, do it with reason. don’t run a bunch just to waste time that’s just mean

How should a debater run OFF CASE arguments?

go for it but it better be good. don’t run a da and not know what you’re doing. cps are good when they’re competitive.

What does the AFFIRMATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot?

Convince me that your plan really is the BEST way to go. if you say that your plan only solves temporarily, what does it really solve? run theory and analytics, that’s how you win.

BE CONFIDENT. if you cower i might think you don't know what your aff is and that's big yikes. be able to clarify all points if asked.

What does the NEGATIVE TEAM need to do to win your ballot?

needs to have at least one main point of argumentation. please don't make topicality it. off case debate is fun but make sure to run on case too or else there won't be any purpose for your DA

What types of behavior will you NOT TOLERATE in a round?

RACISM

don't be a jerk, take a chill pill

don't play on your phones u can time tho

What types of behavior do you ENJOY seeing/hearing in a round?

telling me your speaker position when you enter the room :D it makes it less confusing to me and enables me to give better feedback

always vibin

What preferences do you have as a judge towards…

>>>Speed? moderate to fast. if you speak too slow i'll get bored

>>>Cross-Examination? don't ask stupid questions. don't use it to have a conversation with the other debater lol

>>>Prep Time? don't try to steal it

>>>Impact calculus? love it you should do it

>>>Topicality? don't waste my time. go all-in if you are

>>>Generic disadvantages? sucks. give me a link loser. why run it at all small brains

>>>Conditional counterplans? it's whatever. do what you want.

>>>Kritiks? make it easy to understand

Framework / Theory? if it makes a compelling argument then go for it

Role of ballot? it would be nice. especially if you're aff. everyone read ROB in 2nd rebuttal

What mindset do you use when filtering arguments / arriving at you RFD?

who is the best at delivering their speech, being logical, being able to respond to all arguments, and a positive attitude.

What other comments and/or preferences do you have that would be relevant to the debaters?

paper teams don't whine about tech lol ur annoying

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

Former Newton debater, I’m good at following arts, but I’ve had some time off, so just be clear.

T: I dig topicality, don't drop the standards and voters and 1. aff better have counter s/v, 2. neg better address them.

DA: Just understand the story and be able to explain links.

CP: I don't buy a lot of CPs, but if its your strat, run it, just bring me along for the ride.

CX: Assertive, not mean. Use this to point out flaws.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest

# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)

Feelins bout stuff-

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.

On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.

Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.

Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.

Lynae Silva

She/Her

Goddard High School

Two years @ GHS

4 years of judging

lynaesilva@yahoo.com-include me in the email chain or flashing pls

I was a varsity debater who jumped straight in to open and above, so I have a lot of experience. Involved w/ competitive speech (LD, IX, impromptu) as well.

Speed- Spreading is okay with me, but if you are going to spread I MUST be able to understand you and stuttering must be minimal. Basically, only spread if you are legit good. For the most part, I prefer a moderate-fast paced delivery. You do not have to go conversational with me. I WILL fall asleep.

Topicality- AFF: If T is being ran against you, it MUST be answered with a “we meet” or a counter-interp and standards and voters. It is 100% a priori. I will not vote against you if you are untopical, effects topical, etc. but I will vote against you if T is dropped.Theory is acceptable if explained well.

NEG: If you are going to bother with T, either go for it in the 2nr or don’t go for it at all. I will not vote on T if you give no standards or voters or do not explain the violation. GROUND is the biggest part of T for me. Don’t waste my time on T if you have on-case. I have ran my fair share of untopical affs.

Disads- I am up for any disad. If you are reading any kind of politics, your evidence must be INCREDIBLY NEW. If you do not have all of the parts of a disad (impact, internal link, etc) I won’t vote on the DA.

Counterplans- I’m always down for a tasty CP, but if it’s topical it better be DAMN good and well explained, or I am voting aff on presumption. CP must have solvency and NB!!!!!! If neg does not have this I WILL NOT VOTE.

K, K aff, wild arguments- I am a fan of WELL EXPLAINED K’s. If you don’t have a link or an alt I won’t vote. If aff drops the K they lose on it. K’s are a priori. If you do not understand the philosophy or ideology behind the K then you should not be bothered on running it. Automatic L. If you are running a wild argument, please explain. I do not care if it is crazy. I only care if you understand and support it throughout the round.

Stock issues/case- You should never lose on inherency. End of story. Solvency is VVV important and I expect it to be argued on both sides. If you go 100% offcase all round as neg, you will lose. I would rather see one off and case than six disads and no solvency. Impact defense and advantages are also important in my eyes and could do a lot for you in round on both sides.

Theory/Framing- Framework can win rounds. I’m equally ethics and policy. For theory and framework as long as you argue well I do not care what you are running.

Conduct- You clip you lose. You cheat you lose. Basically, be fair and idc. If you think abuse is happening call it out. Defend yourself.

30 = YOU SHOULD WIN THE TOURNAMENT (VERY RARE)

29.5 and above = One of the best speakers I have seen. YEET (RARE)

29 and above = Top speaker in the room! Congrats! (MODERATE RARE)

28.7 and above = You were really awesome and had great arguments! Just fell short a wee bit. (SPECIAL)

28.5 = gOOd JOB

28.4 and below = NICE JOB

28 and below = MM YES JOB

27 and below = OKAY JOB

Below a 26 = QUIT DEBATE

CX- I WILL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAY IN CX. CX SHOULD BE HEATED BUT NOT ANGRY. USE ALLLLL OF YOUR TIME. OPEN CROSS EX SHOULD NOT BE DOMINATED BY THE PERSON NOT CX-ING. I SHOULD NOT HEAR STATEMENTS BY THE PERSON ASKING QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS ONLY. I SHOULD NOT HEAR QUESTIONS BY THE PERSON BEING CROSS EXED. I AM A KNOWN SCARY CROSS EX-ER SO YOU CAN GO OFF. I LOVE IT.

IMPORTANT RANDOMS-

AFF: IF YOU DROP AN ARGUMENT YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.

NEG: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE ARGUMENTS OR CANNOT EXPLAIN YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.

USE ALL PREP. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. DO NOT STEAL PREP IN FLASHING. YOU ARE GROSS IF YOU DO. FLASH OFFTIME BUT DO NOT TAKE W34W309 MINUTES.

OPEN CX IS COOL. ROADMAPS ARE A NEED. NO NEW IN THE 2 UNLESS YOU CAN SNEAKILY CROSS APPLY THEM.

IF YOU MAKE REFERENCES OR JOKES THAT WILL HELP YOU OUT. MAKE ME LAUGH. :)))

Good luck, have fun! INSTA- @papa_lynae

assistant director of debate, wichita east high school

nsda Degree of Outstanding Distinction certificate holder

he/him

say lets get this bread before cross-x for bonus points

lots of clash in your speech is always great, i think?

try your best

all good for open CX

if you use speachdrop, i will leave the round and submit the ballot in the other teams favor, i don't have time for this nonsense
just kidding (kind of), just use what's most convenient for you and the other team

incorporating any of these phrases into your speech will result in an increase of speaker points:

"devious licks, bruh moment, according to the KSHAA handbook..., perm do neither"

CONGRESS is the TRUE form of DEBATE ????

accomplishments:
parker benjamin mitchell's favorite student: 2021-2023

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

Pronouns: she/her

Background: I am a former debater for Wichita East. I debated for four years from 2012-2016, primarily doing open debate. I have not judged many rounds for this year - I am pretty unfamiliar with the topic.

Preferences: I prefer a moderate rate of delivery. I am most familiar with DA/CP/Case debate. Please limit yourself to 1 or 2 perms on each CP if you're going faster. I am not a good judge for T and K debates (that's not to say topicality isn't important, you should run it if you want but I don't get super deep into it). If you do run a K, please explain it well to me!

Round Etiquette: Be respectful to one another, that includes opponents and partners. I don't care about Open CX, but if 1 partner does most of the answering/asking that will affect speaker points. Don't steal prep. Don't ask if everyone is ready, everyone is ready and will say something if they aren't.

Any questions just ask