Educational Background:

Competed in LD in high school, as well as Public Forum, Oratory, Poetry, Prose, HI, Duo, Improv, and Readers Theatre.

UMKC-Political Science 2015

JCCC-Liberal Arts Associates Degree 2017

Bachelors Degree from St. Edwards University (Austin, TX) in Political Science with a minor in International Relations (University Risk and Compliance Intern, Civics Lab Field Researcher, Lobbyist Intern)

LD:

I appreciate and recognize strong arguments. Arguments rooted in logical fallacies do not impress me.

*Things that do impress me:

-Composure: The ability to assert your points, without personal attacks or emotional responses is an effective tool in persuasion.

-Organization: Construct your argument in a way that is logical/tactical. I need to clearly understand your value and value criterion/standard.

-STRONG EVIDENCE: If you want my vote I need to see/hear evidence that is substantiated and credible.

*I have complex political views, but in the most simple of terms, I am a moderate. Debating made me this way.

*Don't make assumptions about what I know or do not know in terms of evidence supporting your case. I do not judge cases with evidence I may already know favorably if the competitor does not bring it up on their own.

SPECIFICS:

-Speed:

I flow well and fast and have tendencies to speak in an auctioneer-like fashion. As long as you annunciate, and I can understand you, go as fast as you want.

-Cross-Examination/Crossfire:

This is my most important category in Lincoln Douglas. Be respectful, and hold yourself to your case. If there are rude/emotion-based comments made, I will definitely note that.

I am a huge geek for political philosophy, therefore competitors that use those types of value criteria/standards, and have a clear/well-versed knowledge of their value criterion, for example, social contract, (Locke, Hobbes, Plato), I will be very impressed by. If competitors are bold enough to use more unique value criteria, for example, conservatism, and know who Burke is, I will be blown away. That being said, I look at every aspect of a competitor's case and will notice weaknesses and strengths in their delivery, knowledge, rhetoric style, flow, and overall presentation.

Generally speaking, if two debaters are nearly at the same level, my RDF will come down to how well each competitor uses crossfire in terms of how effective the questions are, how well questions are answered, and how those questions were used to develop speeches following that. With that being said if both debaters are remarkably strong in the crossfire, my RDF will come down to me sitting after you have left the room and thinking about which competitor convinced me their stance was the best.

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

I prefer a moderate- to fast-paced debate that is backed with adequate, relevant, and current evidence.

Good luck! :)

In general, I judge with the tabula rasa paradigm. As an educator I also consider myself a critic of argument which weighs in my decisions. I have experience in multiple forms of debate in high school and college.

Hi! I previously did policy in high school & went to nats in policy. I’m pretty chill— I’d say I’m mostly a policymaker judge. I love CPs & going in hard on solvency. T is good too— but have all four parts. If you don’t have all four parts of T then you just ran it as a time skew & you wasted my time. Aff should always perm the CP. I’m not a huge K person but if you run one I’ll follow. Generic DAs are totally cool. You gotta have on case though. Also don’t put all off in the 1NC & then all on in the block. That’s dumb. If you’re good, you should be able to get at least 3 off plus on case in the 1NC. I don’t care how you split the block. I hate new args in the rebuttals. You also shouldn’t need new cards in your rebuttal, you should’ve taken care of it beforehand. The 1AR gets grace though— you’re responding to 11 minutes of neg speech. Aff better have good solvency & it better link to all advantages of the aff. If your solvency doesn’t link then you don’t get access to those advantages. All in all, if you provide me evidence then I’ll believe you. Good luck!

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

- Current Forensics Coach at Pembroke Hill, 7 years of coaching experience and 7 years of competitive experience between NSDA and Collegiate Speech and Debate

- Flay-lay judge. Lightly flow to follow the debate and issues.

- Moderate-low speed preference.

- Voters in final speeches are appreciated.

- Policy- will vote strongly on issues of topicality and relevance to the debate.

For Policy, my paradigm is a combination of Gaming Model and Legal Model. I also have sympathies for the Legislative Model.

For LD and other non-Policy debate, I consider the classical model of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos).

I'm predisposed against counterplans, so the NEG had better convince me it's the right argument for the *specific* AFF case. Otherwise, I'm judging two AFF's, which is not what secondary ed debate is about.

Hello,

I am a former speech and debate coach and I will flow the round.

In Policy Debate, I prefer a good argument that is carefully upheld with excellent evidence. If you must spread, ok; however, I do not love it. I prefer a moderate pace and I want to hear your logic and reasoning. Kritiques are ok, but they must be appropriately applied to the argument and are, frankly, not my favorite.

In Public Forum Debate, I prefer good arguments and sound reasoning with excellent evidence. I want to hear and understand your arguments. I love a good clash.

In L/D, I want to hear the reasons that your value is the winning value. I want good arguments backed with evidence that shows that your value takes precedence over your opponent's value.

Good luck to all of you.

I am a retired debate coach of 20 years. In Policy Debate, I lean toward a policy maker paradigm with direct and in-depth clash in argumentation and evidence. I don’t care for topicality arguments except in the rare occasion that there is clearly a violation. I am willing to consider a K that relates to the topic at hand, but I don’t buy into arguments of critiquing this activity or even the topic itself just for the sake of criticism. I prefer a moderate rate of speaking, but clarity and articulation are more important than speed. If I stop flowing, it is likely that I cannot follow. Too slow, though awkward, is preferable than too fast.

Email: kpdb84n6judge@gmail.com

she/her

Does moderate judging

From a circuit where lay judges are the norm

Ks and high critical theories are out of my scope so if you run them explain the heck out of it

prefer standard on case, I am much more accustomed to PFD