Please add me to the email chain: lbrigdon.info@gmail.com

also, please add analytics to chain, atleast for zoom debates because it might be harder for me to flow them due to audio/connection speed/lag. Thanks

Debate Experience:

*I debated at Olathe South Highschool for 3 years.

*And I have debated at JCCC for 1 year and I'm currently moving onto my 2nd year debating in college.

Pronouns: They/Them

What I expect in and outside of rounds:

I understand that debate can be a squirrely place full of different arguments, theory and ideology, and some have some pretty interesting things to say. HOWEVER I have ZERO tolerance for racist, sexist, ableist, and heterosexist comments in and outside of the activity.

And dont be excessive or unnecessarily mean or rude to anybody in and out of rounds.

I will not do the work for any team, if you have an argument you have to connect the dots and lines for me, I refuse to do extra work for a team. It's apart of getting better, explain your arguments and stick to the ones that best suits you and the round. Show me/tell me why you win the round and cross-apply/pull through the arguments you go for and tell me why its important.

I reward creativity and hard work, show me something new, keep me engaged for a chance at higher speaks.

I also refuse to make any judgements about you or the round based on what you wear, that means nothing to me, in college debate no one really dresses up. Also, making judgements about clothing in & out of rounds is not only classist, but it can be racist, sexist, and ableist. I WILL call out other JUDGES and DEBATERS who make any comments related to another's appearance. This is a space of acceptance.

Spreading/Speed Reading:

I'm more than okay with it, I can understand those who spread. Don't be afraid to speed read for me, don't worry I got it. Just make sure you are speaking clearly, If I cant understand you I will make that evident within round, if I cant understand you or your words are coming out of your mouth faster than your brain can process it. Just slow down on the Tags, Authors. I don't want to hear gibberish, I don't expect it to be 1000% crystal clear the whole time, but try your best to be understandable.

Counter Plans:

CP's are cool, just do the work. Show me that the CP is mutually exclusive and explain the CP that's all I ask.

K's and K lit:

I am a big fan of Kritiks and any K lit, I prefer them much more than policy arguments, however that doesn't mean you have a higher chance of winning or losing a round if you do or do not run them. If you do decide to run a K, you have to explain it well enough for me to understand it, as if I have not heard it before even if I have already, which I probably have lol. Like I said above, I will not do the work for you!

A big part of judging a debate for me, is the technical side, please explain in great detail the link level of the debate in great detail, I cant apply an argument if you don't do the work.

You also have to explain the alt to me, and the mechanisms of the alt, like how it will work, or what the world of the alt would look like. Just be sure to explain your arguments in general.

I'm also a big fan of performance arguments so go for it if you want! :)

A brief summary of some K's I have used this year: Academy, Ableism, Anarchy, Buddhism, Capitalism K, Heidegger, Psychoanalysis, Security, Queer Theory.

Also if you're not black then don't run blackness arguments, if you're not queer then don't run queer theory, etc..

Policy Arguments/Case Arguments:

I was a policy debater all throughout high-school and a little bit in college, I do enjoy some good o'l policy arguments, just make sure you explain whatever you run well.

I'm not the biggest fan of Nuclear war impacts, so if you can avoid it, then please do so. Unless you can prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt how the world will dissolve into nuclear chaos. Other then that all impacts are on the table. I'm looking for creativity with Policy arguments, because truthfully most of them tend to bore me. That doesn't mean you will have a higher or lower chance of winning if you run them, just have fun with it, do the work and show me why you win. it's very simple.

Im also not the biggest fan of Politics or Bi-Partisanship DA's in general, but that can be attributed more to the fact that I hate the USFG and any other Governmental/Power Based structures as a whole, because I believe any power structure is designed to create struggles and tyranny from those deemed lesser, and thats messed up and I shouldn't have to tell you WHY! (Thanks Anarchism K's lol.) But like I mentioned previously regarding Nuke War impacts/DA's, I won't stop you from running them, and I won't weigh them any less than any other DA/IMP's/ or argument you run, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT WORK FOR ME WITH IMPACT CALC!!!

And please if you have case args, then run them if applicable, I feel like there isn't enough clash in rounds anymore and that's partly because people are either afraid, or just dont want to read on-case, read it if you have it, if not I hope you have a sure-fire/strong strategy to win the round. Say if you have 10 DA's and 3 K's it still might not be enough to win the round without great links, or impacts. Because even if you do, if they claim case outweighs and you dont provide any reason why that's not true you will lose, plain and simple. That's also I big reason I think Impact Calc and FW is super important.

Impact Calculus:

Its important, do it in round if you want to make me happy. Show me the in's-and out's of your impacts, and weigh them. Thanks

Framework/Topicality:

Framework is huge for me in deciding a round, I will usually always vote for a team that tells me how to view their arguments, and the round at large rather a team that does not, even if I wouldn't necessarily deem that lens in which they asked me to view the round through is a good argument or not. If you really wanna sell me on a vote for you, have solid FW arguments.

I understand T is basically apart of FW, but if you separate the two, which is totally fine, then good for you. However if you run a T arg you really have to hit home on why a team is or is not topical/ abusively untopical for me its either all or nothing. If you don't make it thorough, and really explain it I wont vote on it, simple as that. And that's also due in part because I hate Topicality, I guess IT IS an argument, but to me its sort of a cop-out unless they're blatantly un-topical. I would much rather see some of your efforts be put into another basket. But again, I won't stop you from running it, but please show me they actually are abusive and

Speaks:

I'm down for any speed you want to go, I dont reward based on presentation and speed alone, but moreover on argumentation, creativity, and how well you explained your arguments.

Coaching/Communication Inquires:

If you would like to contact me for advice, coaching, and/or a more in-depth explanation of an RFD then feel free to reach out to me and send me an email or a text with the contact information listed below. If you do reach out it, I will only respond to debate, forensics, life advice, or college related discussions.

I also I have a close relationship with some coaches and assistant coaches in the community, and if you would feel more comfortable talking to them for advice, coaching, or connections. I'm more than happy to set you up with them so you can connect and talk to them about what I mentioned above or about furthering your debate career.

And if there's any specific theory you'd like to learn about, or what it takes to debate in college, I know either me or my spouse - who currently debates at KU, and is an Assistant coach at SMW - can give you some great suggestions! We are always down to help the community that has given us so much.

Thanks, and have fun y'all! :)

Coaching/Questions Email: lbrigdon.info@gmail.com

And remember to have fun, debate is about expression, learning, growing and making life long connections. Dont take any RFD or ballot to heart, in the end I just want you to succeed and learn as much as you can. I love the members of this community dearly, and I want everyone who partakes to have a good time that they will take with them for the rest of their lives.

I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.

Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).

I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.

As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.

If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.

SY23-24

This is my 8th year judging Debate and 9th judging Forensics

Debate: Mostly Policy

I judge as I would in a courtroom deciding whether or not someone should be innocent or guilty. I am going to listen to both sides, see how well you are able to ask & answer questions, & ultimately prove your case. I am going to wait for someone to CONVINCE me beyond a reasonable doubt that I should vote your side.

Sometimes my decision may come down to how comfortable you are in your knowledge of the topic, &how it's delivered. Do you have confidence? How prepared were you? Do you only talk about how wrong the other team is & why they shouldn't win? I want to know whyYOU should win. When you walk in, I will assume you know the rules, so I just want to hear a good, lively debate that stays on topic.

Forensics:

I received 1st at State every year I was in Forensics in high school, so it means a lot to me.

I look for confidence, proper enunciation, animation, voicing, originality &preparedness. I expect appropriate dress, as it is often distracting & interrupts decorum. You need to look professional while representing your school.

Your excitement & commitment will come through in your performance.

Melanie Davis

I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.

Update September 17, 2023.

Questions? Email regan@wcsks.com.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I am the debate, forensics and speech 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 social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.

In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.

Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.

Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!

POLICY (CX) DEBATE

I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.

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. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!

PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE

Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE

If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP

Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS

I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!

This is my second-year judging debate. Please present clear and well-organized thoughts and presentations. It doesn’t really matter how great your argument is if I cannot understand you. Speak clearly and slow down. Be kind and exhibit good sportsmanship throughout the debate. Be respectful of time and others and don’t forget to enjoy the fact that you are participating in a state tournament.

I competed in debate and forensics for four years in high school, and coached our middle school program. I tend to lean towards policy maker voting and plan-based debate versus stock issues. I like a good squirrel case. I love a good topicality argument - like, a really good topicality argument - but hate a bad one. I dislike single-issue debates and absolutely expect debaters to have more than one argument against the aff case.

I will flow rounds. I expect respectful and educational debates.

Good luck! Can't wait to see you.

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

My experience:

Competitor for Remington High School a long time ago; involvement in policy and primarily speech-focused IEs

Competitor for Sterling College pre-COVID; involvement in IPDA and speech focused IEs

Assistant coach for Nickerson High School pre-COVID; involvement in policy and IEs

Assistant coach for Ashland Jr/Sr High School the COVID year; minimal involvement in IEs

Head coach at Ashland Jr/Sr High School post-COVID; involvement in IEs

Now: Head coach at Nickerson High School; involvement in Policy, Congress, and IEs

2-Speaker Policy:

Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.

What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.

I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.

New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.

Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.

How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that some people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.

How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.

How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(

How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)

When deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer how much impact you and your arguments had on the round then how you sounded as a speaker. Unless you do something really rude. If you are extremely rude to another debater I cannot reward you with a high rank. And your team is probably going to lose the round. I want to see a debate round, not kids getting verbally bullied.

Alix Kunkle — Head Coach at Spring Hill High School

kunklea@usd230.org — Add me to your chain, please.

When judging rounds, I primarily vote on stock issues — have you convinced me that the AFF plan meets all of the stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt? I value clarity in arguments over words-per-minute. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I am very unlikely to follow your argument.

Please be respectful — and most of all, have fun!

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

Former high school and college debater--so I'm very well-versed in the structure and format of a typical policy debate round. I'm also an attorney, so I'm no stranger to seeing/learning/understanding both sides to an argument.

My ground rules:

1. I will not tolerate any arguments that I perceive to be discriminatory/prejudicial. In other words, if you run any argument that is obviously racist, sexist/misogynist, ableist, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-semitic, anti-Islam, etc., you will lose. I also won't tolerate blatant time-wasting or other disruptive behavior.

2. I flow. I will be keeping track of your arguments. I do not like dropped arguments. I expect you to flow through to the end. If you don't, you'll likely lose. If you're disorganized and jumping all over the place, I'll likely drop you.

3. I usually prefer straight policy, but I have been known to lean a little "tabula rasa" and I love a little theory now and then. I am familiar with CPs, Ks, narratives, etc. I don't mind them being run, but a couple things if 1NC decides to run one: (a) know how to do it, (b) understand what you're arguing and be able to explain it well, (c) be creative, but don't make it so wild and out there that there are no real world implications, and (d) bonus points if you can substantively tie it to the issues of the 1AC case. I will say I've never seen a high school team successfully run a neg theory argument...so be warned.

4. Re: speed--if you're a little fast, that's fine. I haven't done champs debate in well over 10 years, so I would prefer a more moderate pace. If I think it's an issue, I'll tell you to slow down.

5. If you're going to run policy-adjacent neg args like Ts or more general D/As, I'm fine with that, too. Since these kinds of arguments should be more direct defensive arguments, I prefer that you solidly tie it back to the 1AC as opposed to making it a filler argument that 2AC has to answer in an effort to strategically bury the aff in several arguments it could potentially drop (i.e., while I understand and appreciate tricks debate, I don't always prefer to see it at the high school level). Trust me, I notice the difference. So if you run a T, I prefer that there actually be a strong ambiguity issue (as an attorney, I'm a sucker for a good statutory interpretation argument). If you run a D/A, be specific about how the aff case will lead to the impact.

6. Almost forgot about standards: I just want you to give me some kind of standard to weigh the round, show me why it's the appropriate standard, and show me why you win it.

7. Re: organization--roadmaps and signposts strongly preferred.

8. It all boils down to this: I'm looking for y'all to be engaged, to think well on your feet, and to have substantive responses. Most of all, just have fun and be respectful.

I debated for three years in high school (a LONG time ago) in the late 80s. I judged for quite a few years then took a break for awhile and resumed judging the last 7 years consistently. There have been many changes that have evolved throughout the time, but I remain pretty traditional.

PET PEEVE: I hate the use of the term "card." As my wonderful debate coach insisted, you should not use the term "card" is not what you are relying upon it is evidence, support, substantiation, or anything similar. Debaters today haven't even made "cards" as we used to back in my day of debate. It is just sloppy speaking as with too many acronyms.

To me, debate is about the affirmative making the prima facie case on all 5 of the stock issues (Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Workability & Solvency). Just like in a criminal case, the Negative only has to win one to create reasonable doubt. I do believe Topicality is a vital issue, and I will listen to the arguments, but I do not want to hear droning on and on about the impacts - get on with how the case isn't topical and move on.

Organized arguments are important to me and add to your ability to persuade.

I am unimpressed with tricky or non-traditional arguments. I like to see the basics performed well and at a high level.

As far as speed goes, I do not find it persuasive or convincing for individuals to speak in monotone voice as quickly as you can reading source after source. Don't speak faster than you can clearly enunciate and take time to explain your arguments and how the evidence you have "proves" the point you are trying to make. I also like when people listen to their opponent's evidence and find flaws, reasons why it doesn't support their case.

A few words about Cross Examinations - I find it offensive when debaters ask questions and then interrupt or talk over the person trying to answer. IF you want a "yes/no" response, learn to ask questions that elicit such responses. If the person drones on and on and on, then I think it is reasonable to raise a hand and say, I think you have answered may we move one? Or something respectful. Keep in mind that this is not argument. You cannot just rely on the questions raised here to carry through on into the speeches as they do not.

For this online forum - I do not want to be part of the email chain as I have enough to manage the two screens with zoom & tabroom open. If there becomes some dispute about the evidence/source, I will ask you to send it to me. I also do not want to wait forever if things are not going through. We did not routinely just have the other side hand over their case/evidence and learned to take our own notes and create arguments just fine. I have been in rounds wasting 30+ minutes just waiting for evidence to be received by the opponents. I like to keep it moving.

I have judged HS debate here in Kansas for the last 3 years. I also debated for one year in college.

I don't mind a fast debate, as I am a fast talker, but don't go at breakneck speed. Remember, I haven't heard your argument before.

I don't plan to time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

I am very well-read, open-minded, heavily involved in politics, and graduated at the top of all my classes. I have both an undergraduate and a master's degree and have done doctoral level work.

Judging Style: I am a public speaker for a living, so I tend to make many remarks on your ability to annunciate and speak clearly with confidence. I put a high value on being respectful to your opponents and I watch your body language. But I don't take well to just charisma with no substance. Be a good speaker AND make a compelling and smart/logical argument.

Arguments:

I'm generally most interested in hearing solvency and impact (particularly in this year's topic). Disadvantages are also particularly important to me and I want to see good clash!

Careful with topicality arguments- I don't like when they dissolve into nit picky arguments. Make it a silver bullet (i.e. if it's made it impossible to rebut) - otherwise, don't argue topicality.

Make clear, organized and compelling arguments as to why you should win. It's that simple - but in my experience, not all competitors get that.

I look for strong debating, good policy, and a good defense of that policy. Not a fan of counterplans. Topicality is important. I do not like ridiculous harms like nuclear war. Strong debating, good speaking skills are what I like to see.

Email: Mtaylor@silverlakeschools.org

General:

I really appreciate nice humans. Rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. behavior will not be tolerated.

Overall, I like debate...in all its forms. If you want to win something in front of me just do the work to make it matter.

Some general thoughts...

Don't flow from the speech doc. Every debate round I have judged for the past 3 years on the circuit has pretty much been won by the team who was flowing properly. When you aren't flowing, you aren't able to see the round properly, you miss really important things like turns and cross applications, your line-by-line is terrible, and you reduce the debate to a bunch of overviews that don't help me decide anything.

I can handle most rates of speed fairly comfortably, but if you are going top-rate, I'm going to be less confident in my ability to get everything, especially virtually. If I am not able to understand I will say clear. Obviously, don't race through theory or any blocks of really important analysis that you are going to want me to vote on later.

The 2AR/2NR should be telling me when, what, where, why and how. If you want me to vote for something tell me explicitly how to evaluate it and why it matters. "even if" arguments are really important in your framing of the round in rebuttals. Contextualization is important.

Topicality

I will always listen to everything you read, but I generally subscribe to the theory that if it is not blatantly untopical, then I really don't care to waste time on T. I am going to break from tradition and scandalize a few people here...but I will generally evaluate reasonability with the same frequency I do competing interps...UNLESS you don't impact it out and give me some analysis why reasonability is good. Blocked out blurbs about ground and predictability are not going to do much in terms of showing me why this argument is important. I hold T to the same standards of analysis and impact development as all other arguments. That being said, do the work and I will be more likely to vote on it.

Disads

Generic is fine...but in my old age I am starting to really prefer specific links and I love a really unique/specific link story. Really good analysis and inference can take a mediocre DA and make it pretty good, so take the time to do the specific analysis. Ptx is fine, but please do your updates.

CPs

In a world where a lot of our big topics become overly generalized by the affirmative team without much attention to rule of law or specifics, I think the CP has a lot of value. I like a well thought out plan text with good Solvency. What ever happened to dispositionality? I don't think affs utilize their cases enough when answering and I think that there needs to be a lot more debate on the CP proper than what currently happens. I will listen to theory, but I generally don't vote unless there is evident abuse.

Ks

Don't expect that I can do much work here for you in terms of lit; I just don't know enough to be able to make those connections in my head. I'm fairly familiar with Neolib, Cap, Set Col and Fem, the rest I'm really going to need you to slow down and give me some analysis. I was not a K debater in school, but that was mostly due to a lack of exposure, not necessarily preference and I really enjoy the critical side of debate. Context is important. It is much easier for me to vote Neg on the K when the negative can show that their alt resolves the links to the K and takes time to contextualize how the Alt functions in the world of the Aff.

I am stock issues judge, but vote using standards and voters provided by the teams in the round. If neither stock issues or a voting paradigm are established by the competing teams I will utilize a policy maker paradigm.

Structure and labelling is very important to me in my evaluation of arguments. Topicality and disadvantages should be structured and labelled for me to give weight to them. I expect at minimum a definition, standards, and voters for topicality; and a link, brink, and an impact for a disadvantage argument.

Please emphasize the tagline, source, and date of your evidence so that the point you are making is clear.

I do not mind counterplans or Kritiks , but they must be ran properly and not treated as throw-away arguments or I will vote against you.

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.

I debated for four years in high school and did forensics in College.

I am currently the assistant coach at Moundridge High School in Moundridge Kansas.

Policy Debate:

I tend to vote policymaker, if there are no policy options in the round I will vote stock issues.

Individual Issues:

Counter Plans: I will vote for a counter plan both nontopical and topical.

Disadvantages: I will vote for a generic DA. Saying the DA is generic is not an answer that will win.

Topicality: Topically must be argued more than just in a 1NC Shell. If you drop standards and voter I no longer care about your Topicality.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments if you have evidence along with standards and voters.

Kritik: I will vote on a K. I prefer ones that are in a policy framework but will consider any alt as long as the team defends the position.

I will not vote on just defensive arguments as a policymaker, if there is no reason not to try the plan then I will vote for the plan.

Lincoln Douglas:

I will consider the value and criterion debate first when weighing the round.

Your criterion should logically support your value.

Speed- LD is intended to go deeper rather than broader and more philosophical, your debating about interpretations, not plans. I don't think speed supports this kind of debate. Don't lose depth for the sake of speed.

Evidence- I think that evidence is important, however, a lack of evidence does not mean a loss. Empirical examples can be just as weighty as traditional evidence.

Both debaters are responsible for clashes, don't ignore your opposition's value or criterion. I don't want to hear a debate in a vacuum.

I tend to be a stock issue judge, but I also want solid policy.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans or K's but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them but please don't run one if you don't know how to do it well.

Speed doesn't bother me. If I can't keep up for some reason, I will let you know. Spreading as a tactic to avoid clash is not going to be in your best interest with me.

I have been a coach for 5 years.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.