Sunflower District Tournament
2019 — US
Debate (Policy Debate) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a tabula rasa debate judge. I generally accept any argument regarding the aims and methods of academic debate. Many people say this is not possible, and if you also believe that, then make the argument and I'll listen to it.
I will not consider attacks on the bases of rational discourse itself, such as whether a thing can both be and not be in the same time and manner, or whether a whole is composed of its parts. These insights, intrinsic to human reason, must be assumed to argue towards any conclusion.
I also assume that policy debate is an educational activity concerning public policy. This typically limits the discussion to the laws, regulations, and customs of society. Purely speculative philosophical discussion does not reach the level of public policy unless that link is established during the round. Arguments on debate theory should relate to the policy question or to the educational aims of debate.
With respect to speed, I believe debate is a speech activity. I do not read speeches flashed to me beforehand, although I may ask to look at evidence after a round. I therefore need to understand what is being said. I tend to understand if the arguments are articulated clearly, with good signposting, at less than 350 wpm.
Currently Coach in Korea, They mainly do parli and LD here, so I have been removed from the policy scene for almost a year now. However I do coach some one on the Korean national team.
derby debate coach 2 years 2018-2020
debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.
LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C. Case debate is import in proving your opponent cant access their V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even I will then look to evaluate the case.
PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text K's are a quick way to lose my ballot. I prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.
CFL update: IF it looks like I am not looking at the computer while you are speaking I have two monitors, one to follow on and read ev, one to watch the debate.
T-aff should be topical, if neg goes T I feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they aren't topical they lose is not okay, explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.
K- I'm good with most K's however don't assume I know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if I don't understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense I probably wont vote on it.
CP- I'm good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS, However, I am open to hearing anything as long as you can defend it.
as far as theory goes I'm good with you making theory args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient for me to not vote on the argument.
condo- is really the only thing that I would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.
disads- I like more true scenarios. I'm okay and should be able to follow most disad story lines. parts of the disad that I value the most in order
case- case is important, one important thing to not do is on solvency; try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die. Losing the solvency flow will lose you the round.
framing- if there is no framing analysis I default to impact calc. Just because you win the framing arg doesn't mean you win the round it means I weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.
last notes- I find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.
Hi, I’m Kayla :)
current assistant speech and debate coach at wichita east
debated policy 3 years at shawnee heights (surveillance, china, education)
current policy debater at wichita state (executive powers, space, alliances, antitrust)
please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
how to win my ballot:
I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information. ask me about updog
if i am your judge for round 10 at nsda .... i've judged all 11 rounds while coaching. i am tired.
I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.
they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.
I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.
I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.
condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.
Open to all kinds of arguments as long as there are sources and links. Make your logical reasoning solid. Address T when warranted but don't waste the whole round on it. Other stock issues are just as important.
Generic DA's need links
Make speed clear with signposts
Updated: Sept 2019
8 years debate experience 2000-2008 (Derby HS, Wichita State University)
11 years coaching experience 2007-2018 (Assistant coach- Wichita East HS, Wichita State University, Head Coach- Hutchinson HS)
I am no longer as active as I used to be and I have not coached or judged extensively for the last few years. Explain your topic acronyms and argument jargon.
I think the topic is important but what the "topic" means is open for discussion. Debate is an important forum and I support efforts to discuss ways to make the community better.
I feel that respect and inclusion are fundamental values. Be mindful of the people in the room. Be nice! I have no tolerance for rude, disrespectful, and exclusionary behavior. Don't like it? Strike me. Debate is a game. Play to win, but have fun!
I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make it a good one. I am not impressed by teams who copy the latest trends and arguments from a college or national circuit wiki without fundamental knowledge on how to execute those arguments. I like innovative arguments and I've voted for some wild stuff, but know your argument and do it well. I appreciate gutsy decisions and well executed strategy. I miss case debate.
At the risk of being a luddite, I don't like to call for cards and I don't want to get your speech doc. Debate is a communication activity and too many debaters rely on the speech doc to make arguments that the were not made in a speech. I don't want to read the evidence unless I have to. Usually if I call for a card that means that there is a fundamental disagreement about contents, suspicion of clipping, or unclear argumentation. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. The most underutilized skill in debate is good evidence comparison. Give me reasons to "prefer your evidence". It is the job of the debater to explain their arguments in a way that is understandable and flowable. Rate of delivery doesn't matter to me, but clarity does.
I know there is lots of other stuff to discuss. Just ask me before round if you have any questions.6.2.5
Judged a few debates on the 2018 high school topic.
Flowing: Not the most proficient. Adjust accordingly
Decisions process: Since a win and loss have to be determined, I do believe debate is a game. My decision criteria can be molded around the debate, but that does not and cannot affect how I view people. If I were to take your arguments as (T)ruth, then I would be personally obligated to carry those arguments into other debates, which I am not willing to do. Don't ask that I do something politically. I try to formulate a decision based on what happened in the debate: the consequences of a particular policy action or way of thinking.
Theory: Slow down. Capitalize on mistakes. Actual abuse is better than potential.
Topicality/Framework: I feel the aff is obligated to relate to the resolution in some meaningful way. I will never NOT listen to an argument, though.
Disads: They are always good, and all offensive arguments should be thought of as, and structured like, disads. Authentic is better than contrived. Evidence does not trump truth and reason.
Counterplans: Some sort of alternative to the aff is almost always necessary for the negative in every debate. The status quo as a counterplan is woefully insufficient most of the time. PICS are fine. Conditionality should be kept in check.
Critiques: They’re fine. I read them a lot, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I understand what you’re talking about. I'm familiar with various Marxist critiques, the Deep Ecological and Social Ecological critique of anthropocentrism and some zizek (though I rarely talked about it past the cross-x of the 1nc). I believe alternatives should solve the critique, but not necessarily the case. Like all arguments, specific trumps grandiose generalizations.
Performance/alternative debate: I like pushing boundaries of what an argument consists. However, I still haven’t found a better formula than UQ+Link+Internal Link=Impact. Your packaging is your choice.
In Round Decorum: Flippant questions and answers, interrupting in cross-x, partner domination in cross-x, and general rudeness are not acceptable. Speaker points will be docked. Being “correct” does not give you carte blanche to humiliate or belittle a person. Have fun and encourage your opponents to have fun as well.
I don’t ask for a lot of evidence. If its important, flag it and explain it. Don’t assume that a citation is sufficient extension.
Tabula Rasa/Game Player
Policy Affs, DAs, CPs, Impact Calc are all fair game.
Ks are fine as long as you explain them. If your K is to destroy debate, go for it, but you're still going to have to win it.
Speed is fine, but I haven't been around much recently so PLEASE slow down and be clear on tags, authors, & dates.
My debate experience is 4 years of policy in High School at Silver Lake, KS. This involved the assorted experience that comes from 3A debate: from multiple lay rounds to highly K-driven DCI circuit debates. I was a part of two state championship teams at Silver Lake. I have judged a few times since high school at open tournaments and/or qualifiers.
firstname.lastname@example.org (for email chain)
Name: Andrew Halverson
School: Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS), Assistant Director of Speech & Debate
Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State.
Note for NCFL National 2021 - Public Forum
The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible.
You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech.
Changed as of 8/21/2020
This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.
**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.
**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.
**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.
**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.
**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.
**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.
**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.
**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.
Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:
**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me
**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.
**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.
**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.
**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.
Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!
I have judged debate off and on for the last 5 years.
Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.
I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.
I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.
Wichita East High School -Director of Debate
Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.
2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.
I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:
I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.
Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.
Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.
CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.
Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.
Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.
Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.
Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.
All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:email@example.com]
Please put evidence in documents, not the email chain.
I keep track of time in all speeches/prep.
Quality of evidence is important.
Condo: implies judge kick, and will do it unless told not to and given good reasons.
Speaking: Speaking style is important; however, it does NOT require sacrificing speed. Being fast can be important, especially in debate. It’d be easiest if you were as clear as possible, or else it makes things harder on me. It also helps with speaks - I will start at 28.5 and work my way up and down.
Cross-ex: yelling, being annoying, or acting like a jerk sucks to watch. Weaponize CX. Make arguments and answer questions - if there is something unclear I will speak up or ask questions. CX ends when the buzzer beeps.
Rebuttals: I will give more thought to genuine smart analysis and card comparison. 2NRs/ARs that lack comparison between evidence and impacts will be less likely to win.
Tech v. Truth: both are important. If someone conceded a DA they concede it. However, if you’re going for a link argument that just isn’t true even if it’s conceded, I will be less likely to vote for that argument; truth is important to some degree with specific arguments.
Case: if you make the right arguments it helps a lot, a good case debate is the best. Highly undervalued in debate. You shouldn’t ignore it. Also, I think judges give way to much leeway on case for the aff, a DA and case strategy can work. Killing a case can boost speaks.
Counter plans: Perms don’t make any sense unless they solve the net benefit, or if the NB links to the CP. Intrinsic and Severance perm theory aren’t voters, but are reasons why rejecting the perm solves. A good cp will make the debate easier. You can also check my thoughts for other opinions on which CPs are legit. Judge kick is implied in condo, I believe that absent the aff giving good reasons why I shouldn't judge kick, I will.
Kritiks: I don’t know every K lit, I went for the K, and it can be strategic. Explain your links and impacts, why the alt solves or why it doesn’t need too, and just make sense. Be clean.
Kritikal affs: they are fine and good. To vote for a kritikal aff, 1) I must know what it does, and 2) why this discussion is good/outweighs. I do tend to lean policy, just based off experience - keep that in mind.
FW/T: either are fine, will vote for both.
i debated for four years in high school and am in my fourth year debating at kansas - rock chalk
please add me to chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
please update your wikis. it won't affect my decision, but i will be really annoyed if you don't keep your wiki updated
tldr: do your thing and i'll listen. i will evaluate the arguments made in a debate as impartially as i can. good for policy v policy debates and clash debates. not the best but not bad for a k v k debate
if you have questions that this paradigm doesn't answer, feel free to ask
i will not vote on an argument that i cannot coherently explain or that has been argued inconsistently
evidence quality is important to me
absent clear judge instruction, impact calculus, evidence comparison, etc. (those three things are very important to me) you should not be surprised by some degree of judge intervention. in those instances where my intervention seems necessary, my decision will most likely be guided by evidence quality on the debate's most relevant issues. to avoid frustrating decisions that involve my intervention, write my ballot for me so i only have to minimally sort through the debate
topicality - i like it a lot. i have never been convinced my reasonability. that does not mean i will ignore your reasonability args, but aff teams always seem to lack either a) a sensible explanation of what reasonability means / what implication it has on how i weigh / think about each team’s offense, or b) if they have that, they lack a convincing reason why i should alter how i weigh / think about each interp’s offense in the first place. if you do those things successfully i will be impressed
t-usfg/fw: i used to be pretty neg biased in these debates, but i've become significantly more neutral. i think the team with a more convincing explanation of debate's effect on debaters' political subjectivity will likely have an easier time controlling how i think about either team's impacts (for example, if i am convinced that debate does not affect subjectivity, then i am more likely to be persuaded by fairness impacts). i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debate is (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something like "a site for the exchange of revolutionary ideas/tactics." whichever side of that you fall on, you will almost certainly need some sort of explanation for the competitive nature of debate and the effect of deciding who wins (which, again, will likely be shaped by what i am convinced debate's relationship to political subjectivity is)
k: you are going to have a very hard time convincing me that i should have a positive or even ambivalent disposition towards death. other than that, do your thing, but assume i know less than you about your k (for example, i don't know what it means for time to accumulate rather than pass, nor do i know what it means for land to have agency). for the aff, "perm do the aff and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt" is not a perm. you need to tell me what about the alt is not mutually exclusive. luckily, this perm is being made less frequently
theory: i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team. that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just regurgitating that statement. this might be weird but i dig condo debates. don't be afraid to go for condo in front of me.
da: i don't have preferences about these other than preferring good evidence
cp: by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, make an argument about it in the debate
clipping = auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it. if i recognize it, i will let the round finish but you will automatically lose with lowest speaks i am allowed to give
bigotry in any form = auto-loss
one last thing - an excerpt from Yao Yao Chen's paradigm that i think is really important:
"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
Name: Tony Nation
School â€“ Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS â€“ Assistant Coach
Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State â€“ Been coaching pretty much ever since.
Email: email@example.com â€“ add me to the chain
If youâ€™re looking for LD specific, itâ€™s at the bottom. Iâ€™d still suggest reading the whole thing.
Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.
I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but donâ€™t go crazy. If youâ€™re not clear or Iâ€™m behind Iâ€™ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you donâ€™t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and havenâ€™t told me thatâ€™s whatâ€™s going on. So, if youâ€™re giving an overview up top, tell me thatâ€™s what youâ€™re going to do.
As far as argument types and preferences, I really donâ€™t care what you run as long as youâ€™re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, Iâ€™m looking for offense. I canâ€™t remember one time Iâ€™ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. Iâ€™m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless thereâ€™s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you Iâ€™m not a â€œstock issuesâ€ judge. Iâ€™d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.
Notes about specific arguments:
All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.
I donâ€™t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.
Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case wonâ€™t solve at all. If you argue that there isnâ€™t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, thatâ€™s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. Weâ€™ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?
This doesnâ€™t mean I wonâ€™t vote for â€œgenericâ€ arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.
My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. Iâ€™m open to anything.
Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.
LD â€“ I donâ€™t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesnâ€™t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules Iâ€™m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 17 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson
Name- Preston Peer
School-Goddard High School
# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest
# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State
Currently a (check all that apply)
____Head HS Coach
X- Asst. HS Coach
X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)
Feelins bout stuff-
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.
What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.
What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.
How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.
I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.
On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.
Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.
Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.
I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.
Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.
Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.
I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.
I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.
I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.
I don't care one way or the other on condo.
Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.
Spreading is fine.
I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.
If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.
Asst. Debate coach 3 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 4 years. Theatre Teacher
The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.
Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:
I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.
To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.
My Debate Experience:
I debated for 4 years in high school, graduating in 2012. I was not involved in the activity from 2012-15. I've been an assistant coach at Wichita East (Kansas) since Summer 2016. I usually judge ~2 varsity tournaments per month between September and January. I regularly cut CPs, case negs, and DA updates for my teams.
email: mateen.shah (at) gmail
Please make the subject line of the email chain: "[Tournament Name] [Round Number] --- [AFF School + Code] vs [NEG School + Code]" and not "r1" or "1ac."
I mostly judge/coach/understand traditional policy args. I don't dislike critical args, but I am less familiar with them, so my threshold for voting on them is higher than traditional args. I aspire to be the type of judge who says "do what you do best," but I'm not there yet. I care infinitely more about how you make your argument than the content of your argument. I don't think I know a lot, but I try to be honest about my limitations.
The most frustrating part about coaching for me has been when judges give my debaters 2-3 sentence RFDs, and then they proceed to act annoyed/disinterested when my debaters ask follow-up questions or for guidance regarding arguments that weren't in the 2NR/2AR. Debaters work hard and deserve thoughtful feedback. Too often judges are lazy and disengaged, or opt to withhold advice because they want their own teams to have a strategic advantage in later debates. I will never behave like this post-round.
I sometimes have trouble in the 1AR and 2NR distinguishing between new args and new application of earlier args. It helps me out a lot when you justify your new stuff, explain why your stuff isn't new, and/or call out when the other team says new stuff.
Speed: I don't care if everything you're reading is in a speech doc. You should still be clear and go slower during overviews/tags/analytics. I use speech docs primarily to read advocacy texts, look at contested ev during cx/prep, and/or to check for clipping.
Condo: Bad for condo debates. Since I began judging in 2016, I've heard one 2AR on condo. It was a really good 2AR. I voted neg.
T: I don't think I'm a good judge for technical T debates. A big part of this is that T debate are too quick and/or I'm bad at flowing T. TVAs, case lists, intent to define and specific DA/CP ground loss are all persuasive. I don't have a strong preference regarding competing interps vs reasonability.
CP: Read CP texts slower. I think judge kick is my default, and I'm probably a bad judge for judge kick debates. I am open to amendments and 2NC CPs, and their respective theory args.
K: If your go-to strat is a 1-off K, you shouldn't pref me. I don't know very much (any) critical lit. In the rounds where I've voted for Ks, the K was relatively simple and/or the aff overwhelmingly lost the framework debate. I'm most comfortable judging epistemology Ks and least comfortable with ontology and pomo Ks.
Judge instruction, historical examples, and simple overviews make these debates much easier for me to follow. Tell me about the world of the alt and why it's incompatible with the aff.
2As that perm Ks should do more than say "do both" and expect me to figure out what that means. Give me a sentence or two about how/why the perm solves the link, read a card, and/or tell me about the world of the perm in the 2AC.
Links of omission and reject alts are unpersuasive.
If I'm unfamiliar with your K, I'm usually reading that ev during cx or prep. If I think your explanation of K (usually the alt) either isn't grounded in the ev that you're reading or is otherwise incoherent, I'm very hesitant voting for you, even if the other team doesn't explicitly make those args.
K affs: I am open to hearing K affs, but I have little experience in these debates. My lack of exposure means that I've had little time to formulate extensive thoughts. Clash and fairness seem most persuasive. I think aff argument's about their model of debate are more persuasive than impact turns.
Case: I think I may have a higher standard for what constitutes a sufficient case extension than other judges. Under most circumstances, I need at least 2 sentences about how the aff resolves its internal links in the 2AC, 1AR, and 2AR. Listing your harms isn't good enough. If the neg has to extend more than their DA impact, so do you. Something like, "The aff ends arm sales, that results in y, which resolves z" is all I want. Too many teams get lazy and ONLY say things like "1% risk of solvency means you vote aff" or "it's try or die for the aff." These are sufficiency framing args, not case extensions. Tell me why you get to that 1%.
Speaker points: Things that I consider when deciding speaker points (in no particular order): effort, clarity, arg quality, ev quality, CX quality, speech doc organization, are you stealing prep, strategic kicks, demeanor during the round (to your opponents and partner,) ability to send an email, whether you're flowing.
Prep: It's never acceptable to use remaining cx time as prep. Asking what cards were/weren't read in a doc is always prep. Please stop asking questions after cx time is up.
Misc info: You should absolutely have an up-to-date wiki if you're competing at a TOC bid tournament. You should probably have an up-to-date wiki if you're competing in the varsity division at any Kansas tournament. Pre-tournament prep is good. Clash is good.
I am intentionally expressionless during rounds. I'm surprised more judges aren't--I think it's blatant intervention for judges to have physical reactions to arguments they like/dislike. It's also extremely condescending when judges vigorously shake their heads and sigh loudly. Don't adjust your strategy because you think you have a read on my facial expression/body language. I don't make a lot of eye contact.
An argument is only as good as your cx explanation. For example, if the neg reads a CP with an external DA net benefit, and during 1NC cx the neg team is unable to explain why the DA doesn't link to their CP, then I will not consider that DA to be the net benefit for the rest of the round. I will automatically disregard any later explanation of why the CP does not link. I apply this standard to all arguments. If you can't explain your "we meet" in cx, you don't get to magically figure it out during your rebuttals.
There's a distinction between spin and making an argument that's not grounded in your evidence. If you're doing the latter, I'm likely going to ignore whatever you're saying.
I think zero risk exists. For example, if the aff's only response to "this advantage has no internal link" is "it's try or die," I'll vote neg and blame the aff for everyone dying. You shouldn't get a W for reading a 1AC with an impact. Also, more teams should lose for writing terrible affs.
I don't think presumption ever flips. The greater the number of unresolved issues in the 2NR/2AR, the more inclined I am to vote on presumption even if the neg does not explicitly make a presumption arg.
I've voted on clipping each season I've judged, regardless of whether the opposing team has called it out.
I'm currently a law student, which definitely colors my reading of Court Affs/CPs/DAs. Practically, I think this means I'm more likely to be persuaded by defense (truth > tech) because internal links are often incomplete/wrong, and plan/CP texts never make any sense.
2As lie soooo much in the 2AR, and 2Ns don't anticipate/pre-empt often enough. Say stuff like, "The 1AR didn't extend a warrant for the link turn--they can't extend it in the 2AR."
Goddard High School
Two years @ GHS
3 years of judging
firstname.lastname@example.org me in the email chain or flashing pls
I was a varsity debater who jumped straight in to open and above, so I have a lot of experience. Involved w/ competitive speech (LD, IX, impromptu) as well.
Speed- Spreading is okay with me, but if you are going to spread I MUST be able to understand you and stuttering must be minimal. Basically, only spread if you are legit good. For the most part, I prefer a moderate-fast paced delivery. You do not have to go conversational with me. I WILL fall asleep.
Topicality- AFF: If T is being ran against you, it MUST be answered with a “we meet” or a counter-interp and standards and voters. It is 100% a priori. I will not vote against you if you are untopical, effects topical, etc. but I will vote against you if T is dropped.Theory is acceptable if explained well.
NEG: If you are going to bother with T, either go for it in the 2nr or don’t go for it at all. I will not vote on T if you give no standards or voters or do not explain the violation. GROUND is the biggest part of T for me. Don’t waste my time on T if you have on-case. I have ran my fair share of untopical affs.
Disads- I am up for any disad. If you are reading any kind of politics, your evidence must be INCREDIBLY NEW. If you do not have all of the parts of a disad (impact, internal link, etc) I won’t vote on the DA.
Counterplans- I’m always down for a tasty CP, but if it’s topical it better be DAMN good and well explained, or I am voting aff on presumption. CP must have solvency and NB!!!!!! If neg does not have this I WILL NOT VOTE.
K, K aff, wild arguments- I am a fan of WELL EXPLAINED K’s. If you don’t have a link or an alt I won’t vote. If aff drops the K they lose on it. K’s are a priori. If you do not understand the philosophy or ideology behind the K then you should not be bothered on running it. Automatic L. If you are running a wild argument, please explain. I do not care if it is crazy. I only care if you understand and support it throughout the round.
Stock issues/case- You should never lose on inherency. End of story. Solvency is VVV important and I expect it to be argued on both sides. If you go 100% offcase all round as neg, you will lose. I would rather see one off and case than six disads and no solvency. Impact defense and advantages are also important in my eyes and could do a lot for you in round on both sides.
Theory/Framing- Framework can win rounds. I’m equally ethics and policy. For theory and framework as long as you argue well I do not care what you are running.
Conduct- You clip you lose. You cheat you lose. Basically, be fair and idc. If you think abuse is happening call it out. Defend yourself.
30 = YOU SHOULD WIN THE TOURNAMENT (VERY RARE)
29.5 and above = One of the best speakers I have seen. YEET (RARE)
29 and above = Top speaker in the room! Congrats! (MODERATE RARE)
28.7 and above = You were really awesome and had great arguments! Just fell short a wee bit. (SPECIAL)
28.5 = gOOd JOB
28.4 and below = NICE JOB
28 and below = MM YES JOB
27 and below = OKAY JOB
Below a 26 = QUIT DEBATE
CX- I WILL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAY IN CX. CX SHOULD BE HEATED BUT NOT ANGRY. USE ALLLLL OF YOUR TIME. OPEN CROSS EX SHOULD NOT BE DOMINATED BY THE PERSON NOT CX-ING. I SHOULD NOT HEAR STATEMENTS BY THE PERSON ASKING QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS ONLY. I SHOULD NOT HEAR QUESTIONS BY THE PERSON BEING CROSS EXED. I AM A KNOWN SCARY CROSS EX-ER SO YOU CAN GO OFF. I LOVE IT.
IMPORTANT RANDOMS- AFF: IF YOU DROP AN ARGUMENT YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.
NEG: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE COMPLETE ARGUMENTS OR CANNOT EXPLAIN YOU LOSE. END OF STORY.
USE ALL PREP. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. DO NOT STEAL PREP IN FLASHING. YOU ARE GROSS IF YOU DO. FLASH OFFTIME BUT DO NOT TAKE W34W309 MINUTES.
OPEN CX IS COOL. ROADMAPS ARE A NEED. NO NEW IN THE 2 UNLESS YOU CAN SNEAKILY CROSS APPLY THEM.
IF YOU MAKE REFERENCES OR JOKES THAT WILL HELP YOU OUT. MAKE ME LAUGH. :)))
Good luck, have fun! INSTA- @papa_lynae
KU debater 2017-present.
i think affs should be topical and am neg-biased in t debates vs affs with no plans, but my voting record in those debates is pretty even. i think neg arguments about competitive equity / fairness are most compelling, but i also think winning those impacts can be tricky if given enough scrutiny by the aff. i am very particular in framework/t debates, so it isn't an auto-win just because you said "the aff should be t" - if you poorly execute framework/t, my ballot will reflect it
thoughts on t generally - affs need more offense. frontlines almost always seem way too defensive, which makes it basically impossible to win without reasonability, and to be honest i am yet to hear a compelling reasonability argument
assume i don't know what your k is talking about because i probably don't
i will always default to an offense/defense framing of arguments unless i'm told otherwise, but honestly i'm not super sure what other coherent framing there is to evaluate arguments
conditionality is almost always good
I judge on stock issues: Topicality, Solvency, Inherency, Significance, and Disadvantages.
Make sure you summarize your cards and points. Roadmaps, signposts, too. If you don't know what that is, feel free to ask me.
I like counterplans and I love kritiks, but only if you lay it out for me. Speedreading is fine, but help my flow out!
I generally ignore cross-ex (I personally believe that's just for your clarification, not for displaying superiority), but do whatever.
Please follow KSHAA rules: face me when you're speaking or doing cross-examination, no "open" cross-ex, no "splitting the negative block." "No new in the 2" isn't a rule, either.
Finally, please remember that prep time was increased in order to accommodate the technology. Prep time doesn't stop until you begin speaking.
I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.
I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly).
I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments. I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments.