Sunflower District Tournament
2020 — KS/US
Debate (LD/PFD) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Experience: I competed in high school policy debate for three years and LD for one year. I have judged a few tournaments since then, but the last time I really had anything to do with debate was in 2017.
Speed: I am unfamiliar with this year's topic, but am generally comfortable with moderate-speed speech (please don't spread; I won't be able to track what you're saying. If you're uncertain, assume I'd rather you go slower and I understand what you're saying).
General Voting Issues: I care about stock issues, including topicality, but I prefer it if you have more to talk about than just whether a plan is topical. Otherwise, I'm good with counterplans/kritiks/whatever as long as you explain it well & convince me it's worth the time you spend on it.
I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.
Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.
Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.
DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.
It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.
T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).
K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.
Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.
Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.
Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.
Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.
I competed in HS during the 90's.
I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years
I seldom think speed is a good idea
I am largely policy maker, at least in background
I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives
I want clash over just about anything else
I prefer argumentation over cards
it is possible I have become a grumpy old man
I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching
I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition
I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as taula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.
Have questions? Email me: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am the debate teacher and coach at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in history, and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.
As a judge, I do not like fast speakers. I would rather you not hit every point in your case and be able to understand you, for the benefit of myself and for your opponents, than for you to hit every point but give me nothing coherent to influence my vote.
At the beginning of the round, please introduce yourself. Remember that you are representing your school, and do so in a way that would make your grandparent proud.
Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.
Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point.
CPs and Ks to me are used as a last resort. I'm fine with a solid T argument, but make it solid.
Please remember to breathe. Please be respectful. Please enjoy yourselves.
I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.
For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.
Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.
In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.
Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.
Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.
Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.
They're great. Evidence comparison is important.
Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.
Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.
Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.
Ks vs Policy Affs
Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.
Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.
T vs Non-traditional Affs
If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.
I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.
Fairness is only an internal link to clash and/or iterative education. On its own, I think the term is rather vacuous. Make sure your rebuttals do comparative impact work.
While my track record in college is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.
Method vs Method
The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.
Here are some miscellaneous tips:
I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.
I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.
Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.
If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.
Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").
Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.
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.
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!!
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]
General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).
Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.
I'm a lay judge and new to policy debate. However, I have done debate in the past so I have some understanding of arguments and how they should go. I don't like debates that are overly speedy. I will be primarily judging on arguments that follow facts and make sense. I will listen to almost anything, it just needs to make sense. Explain everything to me, I am a policy maker.
Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.
As a judge, I value the following:
A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.
Respect and professionalism between debaters.
Passion for the art of debate.
I do NOT appreciate the following:
Belittling your opponent
Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org 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 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.
Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! It is an honor to represent your school and yourselves. I wish you the best of luck this weekend.
Debate Experience: First year judging debate. Have 20+ years of internal auditing experience and basketball refereeing experience, so I am familiar with evaluating situations from multiple perspectives, listening to arguments and making decisions.
Please introduce yourselves and what school you are from and please enunciate clearly. This speaks to the confidence and pride you carry yourselves with. Similarly, speak slowly enough and clearly enough when presenting your case. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t possibly judge for your side. I also ask that you present your case, rather than read it. Suggest making the most of your prep time to familiarize yourself with the material so you can summarize it rather than read it.
Just as I would evaluate a basketball play or internal audit finding, I listen and observe the cases being made by each side. I am very open-minded in my judging and do not rush to judgment, rather wait to see how well you present your case, rebuttals and answer questions. I am not inherently for or against counterplans, kritiks or topicality, just ask that whatever you do, do it well and make a strong case for it. Being an auditor, I am more persuaded by logos, with ethos being a close second and pathos being a distant third. (Interpretation: presentation is important, but you can’t charm your way out of a weak case)
Last but certainly not least, Sportsmanship is of the utmost importance. Compete like crazy and be kind while doing it.