Shelby Eastman

Assistant Debate Coach - Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School

Experience: My experience judging high level debates is fairly limited. I have only been judging at this level since December of last year, and even then I did not judge at a particularly high number of tournaments. The rest of my experience with debate has been in coaching and competing, and I wouldn't call myself particularly good at those either.

Speed: I can keep up with, really, any level of speed, although I feel that my judging quality begins to drop at extremely high speeds. Ultimately, though, I have never voted on a round where speed or differences in speed had a significant impact on the round. Quality of evidence and argumentation as well as actual knowledge of the topic usually makes the difference in the rounds I judge.

Framework: Framing is quite important to me in judging. One of the easiest ways to win a round when I'm judging is to win on framework.

Theory: During my time competing in Debate, I never understood why any judge would ever vote on a theory argument and thought, if I were a judge, I would never vote on theory. I then proceeded to vote on theory in the first DCI round I ever judged. That said, theory arguments, for me, need to have both a legitimate impact as well as a real example of that impact for me to actually vote against a team on it.

Topicality: I have a fairly high threshold for T. I solidly believe in reasonability, and, unless the Neg can show how the Aff's plan reduced the quality of the debate, I am not likely to vote Neg on T.

Kritik: My experience with Ks is quite limited. If you want to go for a K, you'll probably need a little more explanation on it than you would with other judges. That said, I am not averse to Ks, nor will I shy away from voting on a K if the argumentation on it is strong enough.

Counterplans: If the CP solves for the Aff and it's net benefit and is mutually exclusive with the Aff, then I have no problems voting on it.

Case: Of all the parts of policy debate, case and DAs are what I have the most experience with. I've always found that logical analytics can be just as effective at answering advantage or disavantage stories as specific evidence. For both advantages and disadvantages, the first thing I will consider is the likelihood of the scenario being described actually happening.

Disadvantages: There is a reason that generic DAs exist in debate, and the Aff needs to specifically display why the situation for their Aff differs from what the generic link talks about.

I am a "Stock Issues" paradigm meaning the affirmative team must present a prima facie case to win: Aff must prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff the burden to prove.

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

I vote mostly on if the aff can prove their policy proposal will result in a significant advantage free from disadvantages. If the affirmative plan does not solve (produce the advantage), they lose. If the affirmative plan does result in the advantage but it is not significant, they lose. In other words, the negative has presumption and the aff has the burden to prove. I do not like speed. I like the traditional style of debate.