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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but lean toward policy making at this point.

Debated at Blue Valley Southwest High School for 3 years. Local and TOC circuit. Class of 2015. I have judged and worked as an assistant coach for Blue Valley Southwest High School every year since that. If you have any questions just ask. Andiedivelbiss97@gmail.com

Top Level: As a debater I really enjoyed faster, technical debate, but I’m sympathetic to the necessity of adaptation in certain situations. I weigh tech over truth and I generally believe a dropped argument is a true one, but an argument/extension must include a claim and a warrant and an argument isn’t conceded if it’s answered explicitly elsewhere on the flow or in an overview. I view the debate through an offense defense paradigm and am hard pressed to vote for a negative team that doesn’t have any offense. However, I could vote on no risk of a link, especially if there’s dropped defense or an interrogation of author qualifications.

Theory: Except in the case of condo, theory is almost always only a reason to reject the argument or justify otherwise questionable arguments. I generally think conditionality is good.

Topicality: T is never a reverse voting issue. I default to competing interpretations, and generally find reasonability unpersuasive. I think that definitions should be precise. Standards need to be impacted out, and debaters should describe these impacts in terms of what debate would look like for the aff and neg. Precision and limits are the most persuasive impacts to me.

Framework: I think that affs should defend a topical federal government action, but I will try to limit the impact of my bias on my decision. I believe that some predictable stasis point is necessary for debate to be productive. I don’t see 2AC answers that revolve around framework being exclusionary as a persuasive reason for the aff to win the debate.

Counterplans: Counterplans should almost always have solvency. In general my opinions on common counterplans are as follows – PICs are good, 50 state/agent/international/multiplank CPs can go either way, for word PICs and delay and consult counterplans I lean aff but will vote neg if they win technically and am more willing to vote on them if they have specific solvency or ground for competition. Textual and functional competition both have a time and place. I’m willing to judge-kick a counter-plan, but only if told to do so explicitly. However, I have a fairly low threshold for the aff to win that that’s abusive and I shouldn’t do so.

Disads: Impact calculus is extremely important and should begin early and continue through the rebuttals. I think that disad and case can be a winning strategy when doing top-level arguments like turns case. 1AR needs to answer impact calculus but I have a low threshold for answering arguments like “rolls back the case”, that said, I will absolutely vote on them if dropped. I also think time frame is an underutilized method of impact calculus that can make resolving the debate much easier.

Kritiks: I have a fair understanding of most generic Ks (neolib, marx, security) and a limited one for more radical kritiks (baudrillard, deleuze, etc) so you shouldn’t rely too heavily on buzzwords. I have a pretty low threshold for the aff answering K tricks like floating PIKs, but I will vote on them if dropped. I don’t think either the neg or the aff should be entirely mooted and believe the aff should have the ability to weigh their impacts against the K. Finally, I don’t want to have to evaluate two ships passing in the night, so the negative must do aff specific analysis on both link and impact levels.

Speaker points: Please be respectful of your competitors - racist and sexist language will result in extremely low point values. Smart strategy/concessions, impact calc, humor, efficiency, evidence comparison, and technical proficiency will get you more points. If a team wants to challenge another team for clipping they must have audio proof.

she/they UT 24 sophiaef2001@gmail.com 4 yrs policy, 2 yrs pfd, 1 yr bqd (lol) @ SMNW in KS

email me anytime w/anything

I have some general opinions about debate, but they definitely shouldn’t be taken as absolute truths and in most cases my opinions are flexible. None of my opinions should prevent you from debating the way you want to, and my goal is for you to prove how the round should be decided. Caveat: if you’re racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., you'll be penalized. Additionally, if you are particularly bigoted and/or problematic after given space to learn and improve, I'm likely to contact a coach.

Since I've stopped debating, I've forgotten some buzzwords and technical approaches/meanings. If you use them properly/in the right context, I'll probably understand, but err on the side of caution. I also haven’t listened to/participated in fast debate since hs, so I may ask you to slow down, but you should start at whatever pace is comfortable for you and we’ll go from there.

Please feel welcome to ask questions before and after the round – I love giving feedback

tldr: Don’t create a hostile space, I'm good with nearly all args, and while I debated policy 4yrs in hs I've only judged slow/medium debates and I haven't seen too many different arguments on this resolution.

About the round

– Email chain please (please don’t send cards in the body of an email)

– You can be assertive and quippy w/o being mean. I’ll dock speaks for being mean. If you're constantly steamrolling, you're likely to be 4th speaker.

– Please try not to be too loud while someone else is speaking. It's really hard for me to understand when multiple people are speaking at once, and it can be distracting if you’re rummaging around.

– Please don’t call me judge, that's really weird to me (like extremely, I can't emphasize this enough).

– Signposting, popping tags, roadmaps are nice and appreciated

– The rest is specific stuff that isn't necessary to know, but may save you from asking questions and informs my evaluation of the round (absent in-round arguments on them)

Case

– Fiat is durable

CP

– Should compete functionally and textually. I'm not super likely to find non-competitive cps persuasive.

– Should have a solvency advocate.

– Solvency can be a net benefit, but the burden here is really high, and I probably wouldn’t hinge winning the round on it (especially if the perm accesses solvency).

– If you run a lot of lazy CPs just to bog down the 2AC (and it's clear you were never going for them), I'm going to give leeway to condo bad

T

– Never a reverse voting issue – if you make that arg, I'm not going to listen to it because it is objectively silly

– Jurisdiction as a voter is just not real (source: I made this argument to parent judges and got away with it way too many times)

– Counter interps are generally important to have, especially if you objectively don’t meet the interp.

– If the 2NR has T it should probably be the only thing in the 2NR

– I probably won't weigh impacts of the aff against T

– If reading multiple T violations, please don't just cross apply standards and voters from one flow onto another. They should probably be intrinsic to the the violation and the interp you’ve read.

K

– I'm not super familiar with K literature. I've encountered many Ks and have a general understanding of their premise (setcol, cap, fem ir) (and have handled their literature in courses outside of debate), but I didn't read them while debating in hs and K work will have to be especially clear and structured.

Misc takes

– Evidence is important, but just having it is not sufficient to win: a claim with good analysis is going to win over evidence with no explanation (tag extensions aren’t sufficient, warrants and arguments are needed). Including both evidence and analysis is preferable.

– I lean probability over magnitude (i.e., economic instability over nuke war), but don’t be scared of running big impacts – good analysis and break down of the internal link/link story is very important for high magnitude impacts.

– Theory is cool, but I'm not likely to vote on a spec arg unless there is objective justification (funding and enforcement spec are probably a no go). Normal means is typically sufficient (as a result CPs that are basically just the aff + meeting the spec arg are not super persuasive).

– I think dispo is weird and you should probably just commit to being conditional or unconditional.

– I'm not really a fan of judge kick; I don’t want to have to make those decisions (i.e., i'm not going to kick the second advantage for you)

– Clear line-by-line is my favorite. Overviews are good for analysis, but I can have a hard time flowing them if they’re especially long (so please don’t hinge the success of a flow on your overview).

– Please don’t use those weird stock issues metaphors. They’re not for me because I'm not a stock issues judge, so they’re really only a waste of your time (stock issues are weird to me).

– Reading blocks at lightening speed is not a good strat for me. I can’t write as fast as you’re firing off important things and I'm going to miss some (or a lot of) stuff

– tech ≈ truth: I don't have to believe an argument is true in order to vote on it, but it can't be obviously false

– Please don't sweat eye contact or being charismatic; I don't really care

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

8 years of policy debate experience

will vote on anything as long as its warranted

not a fan of shadow extensions

very high threshold on T this late in the season- prefer proven abuse, default to reasonability unless told otherwise

will vote on Ks but i don't know all the lit so you need to do the work on it

WIlLLVOTE DOWN ACTIVELY RACIST SEXIST OR BIGGOTED DEBATERS

ill vote in the place of least resistance

prefer impact calc over dropped args but will vote on both

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Email Chain: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

Please include relevant information (tournament name, round, team codes, ect.) in the subject line and speech doc names.

I debated at Wichita East (2015-2019). I then coached + regularly judged (2019-2022). Since then, I have not coached and only judge once or twice a year. I likely know absolutely nothing about the topic or newer debate trends/norms.

When I debated, I was a stereotypical policy 2N – I usually went for a counterplan + disad, never read kritiks, and always went for T-USFG vs K affs. I have very little experience reading kritiks but plenty answering them.

Thus, I am most comfortable and competent judging policy vs policy rounds. I am okay for policy vs K rounds. I will be a very bad judge for K vs K rounds. I do not have an ideological opposition to kritiks but due to my lack of experience going for them you should err on the side of over explanation.

That being said, please debate using whatever speed and arguments you are most comfortable with, and I will do my best to adapt to you. If you provide clear and warranted analysis, explanation, impact comparison, and judge instruction you are likely to win my ballot regardless of your argument style.

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the flow with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

10 minutes before start time:

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to make arguments.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads. Or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments ONLY if the 1NC is big or positions change substantially in the block.

---I don't want to hear my name in speeches.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate. I have no way of verifying them, and I am not comfortable rendering judgement on the moral character of a high schooler.

Please avoid:

---re-reading constructive blocks in rebuttals

---deliberately avoiding line-by-line

---spreading your blocks at full speed

---demanding a 30

Practices that will have a positive impact on your speaks:

---word economy

---vertical argument development

---flowability

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---Aff:

---well developed/highlighted advantages > impact spam.

3---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better.

I love the politics DA. I also hate the politics DA. Interpret that as you will.

4---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links and consistently articulate the same theory of power. Reading links to the plan, drawing lines from the 1AC, and articulating turns case analysis will substantially increase your speaks and likelihood of winning.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

5---Topicality: My thoughts here are mostly conventional, except:

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say, and strong generics help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff is our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

6---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Having a topic-relevant solvency advocate will make me more sympathetic to CPs that derive competition from immediacy/certainty.

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

7---Case: No aff solves. The fact neg teams are often reluctant to prove that is a critical mistake. Good case debating wins debates and will lead me to boost your speaks.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

8---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

I consider K affs that defend impact-turnable positions more persuasive on T.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue" if the neg kicks it.

9---Framework: Go for whichever impact you prefer, though my personal take is that skills impacts are inferior to fairness standards. I find presumption compelling.

T could be different from framework, but any conceptual distinction between the two seems difficult to maintain given their colloquial interchangeability.

10---CX: I flow it. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

11---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

12---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages. That is premeditated cheating, which will not be tolerated.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

"The time for Thinkers has come; and the time for revolutions, ecclesiastical and social, must come."

-Mary Baker Eddy

-He/Him

Experience

-4 years of debate/forensics at Shawnee Mission North

-2 time national qualifier and 2019 KSHAA 6A state champion in DX

-Qualified to state all 4 years in LD, policy, and domestic extemp

-Some arguments I enjoyed running in high school were: Effects T, Federalism DisAd, e/f spec, Structural Inherency, Neolib, States CP, DeDev, Prolif good, and Any kind of Theory

Paradigm

-Truth over Tech! I have never been that convinced of terminal impacts having much truth/honesty behind them. I do not think China and US will be going to nuclear war if your plan does not pass. Unless you have great evidence, I also do not believe that your plan will cause a worldwide economic collapse. If you want to get me on the impact debate, have faith and belief in your impacts. Realistic impacts get my ballot most of the time. If you give me a good enough reason to “disregard the flow”, I will do so.

-The Boring Stuff: Off-time roadmaps are fine with me as long as the aff and the neg both agree to it. If you have a content warning announce it before the speech begins. Under views are appreciated. Don’t steal prep!

-I love specs. I am a big believer in vagueness as a key voter. Your plan should have a funding and/or enforcement specification. That being said, if the plan text does not include an e-spec or f-spec, that’s not too big of deal as long as you have a card that outlines what implementing the plan would look like. Legislative Fiat does not apply to enforcement or funding, only guarantees that the plan is passed.

-I enjoy the T debate. I really don’t like to see teams default on the lit checks abuse argument unless the Neg is making the preparedness argument. Topicality is perfectly fine if it is introduced in the 2NC. Multiple T shells are fine as well. I don’t find extra-T arguments to be all that convincing. If you use an F-spec that falls outside of the resolution, but do not claim any advantages, that is fine. I will only vote for a neg’s extra-T argument if the plan claims advantages for actions outside of the resolution.

-I’m pretty indifferent about the K debate. If you want to run a K, go for it! Just know that I do like to see more specific alts. Performance Ks are fine as well. The literature I am most familiar with would include: Agamben, Foucault, Sartre, D and G, Heidegger, and Bataille.

-I love to see good clash on the counter plan debate. PICs are generally fine with me. Perms are pretty convincing to me but I do find intrinsic perms to be not as convincing. I’d also like to see a solid DA being solved by the CP. Topical counterplans are also good, that being said, I would strongly encourage the Neg to go all in on the counterplan if it is topical. It’s not a good look if you argue resolution is bad and then run a topical CP. All in all, it’s fine by me if the round devolves into a theory-centered CP debate

Extemp

Intros

-I know this isn't impromptu but please avoid canned intros. Get creative and think outside the box.

Topics/Question

-Question selection has no bearing on my judging decisions.

Timing

-If tournament rules allow, any speeches within the 30 second grace period will be treated the same as any other 7 minute speech. Time is just a construct anyways, right?

LD

I love this event. While it lacks the technical complexity of policy, LD is one of the best ways for students to showcase their critical thinking skills. My thoughts on more policy debate-centered issues pretty much reflect my thoughts on LD. That being said, there are a few trends in LD that really rub me the wrong way. For example, keep the plan texts out of LD and save your DisAds for policy season. LD is an amazing opportunity for you to show me how you see the world and how you arrive at your own philosophical conclusions. No need for speed, speak to me like you would during an in-depth conversation. Be the best orator you can be and you will certainly make me a happy judge.

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.

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.