Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

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 competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

I did four years of 4A debate, and three years of mixed styles of collegiate debate (NPDA, IPDA, NFALD). We did fast debate, we did not do speed. I understand the difference. However, flashing me speech docs/email chains and being clear about when you switch cards has made my adaptation to you easier. I also understand that I'm not the target DCI/speed/critical judge, so I'm fine with being sped away from rounds if it's a strategic decision; I do my best to keep up, and I haven't squirreled because I've missed something yet.

I'm fine with all argument styles, there isn't anything I reject at face value argument-wise. I'll always give more weight to specific link analysis, especially if this is continuously pulled through with analysis through the debate. I'm also a big fan of impact framing and actually comparing the impact framing of the aff/neg as an additional lens to impact calculus. Putting lots on the flow is good, working the flow to your advantage is much better. However, I'm also very likely to vote on how you treat your opponents in round. For example, if you read a 15 card block to why I shouldn't care about trigger warning args, but ask the team "So, how triggered are you really?" in CX, I'll vote you down if the opp team makes it a voter.

I work for Pfizer. I do have a bias to not buy medicine/science DA's that aren't really rooted in science. Also, if you make claims like "AlL BiG PhArMa BaD" without any nuance or warrant, I probably won't be very happy. Sorry, they pay my bills.

I debated in the 1980s. While I maintained the "stock issues" paradigm for a decade or so after that, I have become more progressive. Twenty-four years of coaching have demanded it.

My coaching resume:

4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)

10 years Shawnee Mission North

12 years Shawnee Mission West

1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit

What I do not like:

DISRESPECT OF ANY KIND . . . check your sarcastic tone, your eye rolls, and your bad attitude at the door. Be a good person.

provocative language (especially slurs; I know people use them in real life, but I do not need to hear them in a debate round to be "woke")

super fast spreading (I need slower tags, and I need you to slow down if I clear you)

theory debate

extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple

What I like:

topic-centered debate

real-world application

K debates where things are explained to me in a way to make me feel morally obligated to decide correctly

strong 2NR and 2AR . . .my favorite speeches!

people who are kind but assertive

-top-

tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions

put me on the email chain: d3lett@gmail.com

call me dom and use they/them pronouns

wichita state university: 2018-now

coach at maize high school

-o/v-

certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants

clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar

i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier

insert graph joke here

-fw-

i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects

for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated

for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence

-t-

many of my preferences for fw apply here

reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling

-disad/case-

i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded

-cp-

i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve

-k-

it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan

-soft left affs-

the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter

-theory-

actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated

condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff

-other thoughts-

misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly

cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks

inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence

new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity

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).

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

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.