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:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency.There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

Hello, I'm Nathan, a high school senior at Wichita East High School.

This is my fourth year debating-- I don't compete at the varsity level; instead, I compete at the KDC/Open level, which means I'm generally comfortable with any argument you're running as long as you are able to explain the argument well. The only argument I'm not completely comfortable is K's--I'm open to hearing K's but you're most likely not going to win on that argument.

25 years head debate coach; 4 yrs Policy/Congress/IE competitor + 1 yr NDT/CEDA

Policy: Default to standard impact calculus; ideal round would involve a single topical policy proposal from the aff vs. a single alternative policy proposal from the neg. if you want me evaluating non-plan arguments I need to be given a well-explained reason why that's a better use of my ballot than the endorsement of a good policy option. Most of the time tech > truth. If you make the round a toxic environment for me or for your opponents I may intervene to vote against you. That is NOT an invitation for you to complain in your speeches about your opponents' behavior. It is a warning that I don't like bullies, blowhards, and people who treat the activity as an arena in which to Get Their Alpha On, or as a stick with which to clobber their cultural/political outgroup of choice. I am capable of speed up to the level of a moderate KS varsity round or slow circuit round; I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

LD: I'm not what you'd call prog. The wording of the resolution, and specifically the evaluative term, dictates my judging philosophy--basically, you win by engaging the resolution as written and proving your side is true. Many recent LD topics have been phrased as straight-up policy topics--if you can convince me that the resolution you're debating is one of those, then the full range of policy strategies become legit. For more traditionally worded resolutions, I am far more likely to be persuaded by whole-res justifications as opposed to situational ones. If you win the V/C debate, all aff and neg impacts are filtered through your V/C, so spending time there can be strategically useful. I'm persuadable on util good/bad, and generally persuadable on theory, provided your "theory" argument doesn't render the resolution undebatable or absurd. I have not yet heard a LD round that was too fast for me, but bear in mind I am a middle-aged man who judges at the regional level; I am not at the cutting edge of this activity. I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

Congress: redundant debate is bad. Direct responses to preceding speakers are good. Unkindness to other competitors is very very bad indeed. Skilled POs tend to place very high in my rankings.

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.

I have coached middle and high school Speech and Debate for 14 years. For debate, I'm okay with spreading, kritiks, and unique arguments. The speech coach in me will tell you to SELL ME on why either side should win the debate. I leave it to the debaters to decide the framework I should value most. Just make sure you are persuasive.

I have worked with the SM East Debate program for 3 years. You may run any arguments that you want. Be prepared to explain if reading multiple cards. Read at the speed you are comfortable with.

Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.

Addendum for College LD:

I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!

A few things about me as a person:

First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. Thanks!

Second, I am no longer coaching in high school. I’m typically average 5-10 rounds a year on the high school topic now that I don’t coach. I sometimes coach and judge NFA LD. I remain current on politics, the economy, international relations, etc. I previously coached at Topeka High and Shawnee Heights. I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask

Third, I’m open to different speeds, but I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Additionally, be cognizant of the fact zoom can make you less clear. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - hannahjohnson93@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.

How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:

I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.

Affs:

I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.

Topicality:

When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.

Disads:

Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.

Counterplans:

I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.

Framework:

You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.

Fringe Args:

I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.

Generic Framing:

I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

I prefer actual conversational debate, but speak as fast as you like (as long as I have your speech/evidence in front of me) speechdrop, please

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

KU '26

Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and Greenhill

I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:

- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.

*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.

- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.

- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.

- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.

- The only caveat to me deciding technically and offense-defense is cowardice and cheap-shots. I will not vote on hidden-SPEC and am very willing to give new answers. Similar ones like floating PIKs also probably don't meet the bar of a complete argument. If there is uncertainty make it a real argument...

That said here are some of my debate thoughts that could shape your strategy:

- For K-AFFs, it makes far more sense to go for a form based impact turn, rather than a content one or a counter-interpretation.

- For framework, contextualize your offense and defense to the debate/case you are debating or just go for fairness.

- Performative contradictions, when going for the K/the 1NC is multiple worlds, matter a lot to me and probably implicate your framework arguments.

- The fiat K/interpretations that zero the 1AC make more sense to me than trying to make causal links to the plan and huge alternatives because the perm double bind becomes truer.

- I have never seen an AFF reasonability argument on T that I found persuasive, I can obviously be convinced otherwise, but it seems like an uphill battle.

- My default is no judge kick/I will not do it, unless explicitly told to.

- Non-condo theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team.

- Absolute defense, zero-risk, and presumption are most definitely a thing.

- AFF intrinsicness arguments on DAs have rarely made sense to me.

- Establish a metric for competition and have standards. I would like to see a counterplan that competes on the unique resolutional mechanism, rather than certainty and immediacy.

Things that will boost your speaks:

- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.

- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.

- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.

- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.

- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.

- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...

Miscellaneous things include:

- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.

- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

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.

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.

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.

Greetings Debaters!

(she/her)

I am a 5th year debate sponsor with my school with not a lick of personal debate experience to my name. I am but a humble teacher of mathematics who wanted some extra ways to get involved in my school. That's not to say that I haven't been learning a lot about debate with every new year that I sponsor. I've come a long ways to where I am in understanding the jargon of debate, the technicalities of a round, and how to listen to a round. My team has in the past referred to me as a "fairly competent lay judge" with my current abilities. So I've got some judging experience but by no means am I ready to listen to a team spread like their lives depend on it or run complicated plans/kritiks. I do my own form of simple "flowing" which sometimes has given teams the impression that I'm more advanced of a judge than they assume and I am lost in the round very early. Looks are deceiving, I honestly just have a terrible working memory for lots of details in round!

When judging debates, I really appreciate when I'm able to learn more about debate itself from the competitors. There are a myriad of different types of arguments that you make to poke holes in cases or highlight issues with speeches - be explicit to me on what you are attempting to accomplish with your own speeches or CX. A road map for each speech is a must with VERY CLEAR markers within your speeches to tell me when you are addressing a new part of your competitors last speech. Like I mean almost excessively explicit within your speech. I can judge best when I am able make sure each argument is being responded to throughout speeches.

I tend to vote on solvency or impact calculation, but have been known to give the ballot to a really convincing framework debate.

Good luck!

Please add me to the chain: oli.debate@gmail.com

I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.

Be nice to each other.

About me: I debated all 4 years of high school and I am a freshman at KU.

General Approach: It's your job to win my ballot, not mine. I'm willing to vote on a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that's not a decision I want to have to make and I won't do any of your work for you (i.e. tell me what I should be voting on and why). If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then I expect you to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one 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 you win 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). Tell me where the work you're doing goes and what it's responding to, I won't do it for you.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody that I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you.
• Cross Examination - Don't use cross-ex to make arguments, and don't badger each other incessantly. Make your point or get an answer, then move on.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer, but I won't take it upon myself to 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)

• 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 developed beyond each side establishing that they have a framework different from the other team.
• Kritiks - I am not the biggest fan of them, but you can still win on it. I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. It also help if you do plan to go for it you spend time on it and truly explain the alt. I also per if you slow down on them.
• 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 developed beyond each side reading a frontline.

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

• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• IMPACT CALC!!!!
• 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 where you choose what to win the round on. I don't want you to try to win it multiple times in multiple ways, I want you to win it once and in the best way possible.