Email: trey.swingle@gmail.com

I would call myself tab but there is no such thing as tab and everyone who says so is a liar, they're all offense/defense judges because there is no such thing as a blank state everyone has their preconceptions about policy already.

Mine are as follows:

T is incredibly important and I will pull the trigger on this arg as long as you A. win your standards, B. explain the internal to your voter, C. win that your voters outweigh, and D. do the work on reasonability. In terms of voters I definitely lean towards fairness, I'm still willing to vote on education but if thats you all-in in the 2ar/2nr be warned. For me to vote on reasonability you probably have to win race to the bottom, and you have to have a pretty solid we meet. I evaluate reasonability like a perm. Ask if this is unclear in any way.

Das are cool, most of them are bullshit and if you're just shotgunning args onto the flow to outspread people, you have to do the work and if I dont understand your I/L story I'm not going to vote here if they have any decent ink on the flow. I also believe in terminal link deficits, meaning I dont care if they concede 8 extinction impacts if they can realistically prove that there just isn't a probable link. 1% risk is pretty bad for debate tbh.

K's are awesome, I love cap and state an bio-politics, I have a pretty solid grasp on most k lit present on the high school circuit, but if you're doing something wacky, just be clear why im voting for the alternative. Ex: if you read an unintelligibility alt, and don't say its an unintelligibility alt, you just are unintelligible, I'm not going to vote for you.

"pre/post fiat": Stolen from my homie Kenton Fox: I think the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" misconceptualize the function of an alt. Explain the alt as a methodology that can resolve the links and impacts of the k/1AC instead (this in no way means you shouldn't make in-round claims. Example - if you're reading psychoanalysis most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon the ballot, whereas if you're reading histomat most of the analysis you do will likely be contingent upon plan action proper. Most of the time when you talk about the "post-fiat" level of the alt you're just describing the world of the alt, which should be accessible (at some level) through the judges endorsement of the alternative

Perf con: I prefer the term ped con or pedagogical contradiction but w/e idc. I will vote on perf con if the alt is epistemic or pedagogical analysis. I believe these alts are best as 1-off or at least with DA's that are not morally contradictory. If you read a "counter-reformist reform" (silly term) 1ac with a indicts of the negs DA impacts, the DA doesn't even necessarily have to be morally contradictory at its core as long as you win the indicts. This does not mean I will always vote on perf con dont assume that you don't have to do the work.

K affs are fine, just have a warrant why its ok to be non-topical in the 1ac and you should still be tangentially connected to the topic. If you arent that cool but you're going to have to do a lot more work on the framework page or I'll just vote neg on fairness.

FW is just a way to evaluate the structure of debate, including the pedagogical and epistemic benefits of the activity. Framing is how the judge should evaluate impacts. This distinction will just make my flow clearer, and make it a lot easier for you to extend your framing/FW as my RFD in the 2ar/2nr.

Condo. I will vote on it if you win the standards/voters debate. I will not vote on one or two conditional advocacies, but past that you hit the point I'm willing to pull the trigger. Multi-plank CP's where each plank is condo is incredibly abusive and I will vote on this near 100% of the time as long as you do the work. I dont like these dont read them please.

CPs are fine, just not delay or multi-plank.

Disclosure: I hate this arg. Im liable to just toss it out because large schools with access to resources benefit the absolute most from things like wiki disclosure, and if you're a small school having disclosure read against you I will vote on an RVI; call it hacking, I don't care.

I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

Ex-HS Debater

////////////

I value:

- Quality of speeches (e.g. Delivery, pronunciation, logical thought, flow, etc.)

- Stock Issues

- Open to whatever the teams want to introduce into the round (e.g. counterplans, etc), as long as they are logical and persuasive.

///////////

I will give the W to the team that speaks the best and has the best arguments. If I'm unable to have those 2 attributes in 1 team, I will opt for the team with the best arguments.

Ex-HS Debater

////////////

I value:

- Quality of speeches (e.g. Delivery, pronunciation, logical thought, flow, etc.)

- Stock Issues

- Open to whatever the teams want to introduce into the round (e.g. counterplans, etc), I will flow them, but it's been 15 years since I debated - so I prefer if there's some grounding in logic and it's easy to follow :)

///////////

I will give the W to the team that speaks the best and has the best arguments. If I'm unable to have those 2 attributes in 1 team, I will opt for the team with the best arguments.

I am an old fogey, and did not debate in school, so take that into consideration. Judged a few rounds when my kids were in debate. Talk slow and be logical. :)

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

Congressional Debate--I expect your speeches to address the major issues addressed by the legislation or the concerns raised by the assumed passage of the legislation. I look for speeches that are continuing to advance the debate, not just re-hash points already brought up by previous speakers. Please follow parliamentary procedure. It really is not that hard.

POs should keep the chamber moving efficiently and professionally. Maximizing speech time and cross-x time plays a huge role in my evaluation of a presiding officer. I also expect much consistency from a PO in rulings and recognition of speakers.

Lastly, have fun. This is a fun event. Use humor where appropriate. Enjoy your time in these chambers.

Policy Debate--I'm that judge you wish you did not get. I am old school and I don't like speed.

I have more than 8 years of experience. I am a tabula rasa judge. Whatever you run I will listen to. However, I do expect it to be clear and I expect you to tell me where to vote. If not, then you will get whatever decision happens on the flow.

I am okay with Kritiks, Counterplans, and other off case argumentation. I do not hate T and I will listen to analyticals within reason- however, if you expect to do something big with them you will need to provide evidence.

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. The extra commentary is here to help you do better so read it if you'd so choose.

Pronouns:

She/Her/They/Theirs

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: The disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say that).

2. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

3. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. The competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument, doesn’t really matter to me. I truly believe that debate is a battle of the minds, you are learning real life advocacy skills. So whatever you run I will listen to despite my personal feelings about individual argumentation preferences.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas in SE Kansas- High School, 2 years Parliamentary Debate and Lincoln Douglas Debate at Hutchinson Community College. 2 years Parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 6 years of Judging experience in both college and high school levels, all styles of Debate.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

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.

From the standard paradigm sheet:

- Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

- Policy Maker/Tabula Rasa/Flow. Default to Policy Maker (expect impact calculus).

- Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated -- very rapid speed discouraged. Speed if you can, don't if you can't.

- Counterplans are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

- Topicality is fairly important -- roughly on par with other major issues in the round. I expect standards/voters from both sides, must pull to rebuttals.

- I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable. Prefer specific links.

- I find kritiks general acceptable. Prefer specific links.

General Notes:

- I prefer off-case to on-case, and I generally don't care about stock issues. Since Topicality is flowed off-case, it serves as a prerequisite to on-case debate. Solvency is the only on-case argument that will be used to evaluate the 1AC against any off-case such as disadvantages/CPs/Ks.

- I fully support the use of CP's and K's, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.

Email: benlengle@gmail.com

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.

TLDR

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.

Theory

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.

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

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

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.

T

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

"The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom" -a fortune cookie

I tend to believe that fairness is not a terminal impact. I have a hard time quantifying it in relation to affirmative turns and disads to framework. You would need some concrete, aggregate data that showed people quitting or however you explain why it matters and exclude any variables that don't deal with critical affirmatives. Clash and iterative education are much easier to win in front of me.

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.

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.

LD Paradigm

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.

Please include me in the email chain: lisacarlos@sbcglobal.net

Back in the day, I was a high school debater (Hutchinson Trinity Catholic). More recently, I coached high school debate (also at TC) for five years. I prefer the classic style of debating with weight given to speaking style and elegantly developed arguments with direct clash. I appreciate courteous manners.

I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge with expectations that all stock issues will be met.

I am a flow judge. I am ok with fast talking, but if I can't flow it is too fast (I will try to indicate this through the camera).

I don't like kritiks, so if you run one, please have a good reason and explain it well.

Stock issues are important to me, but not necessarily the sole issue of my ballot (BUT if something is glaring, I will vote on it).

I am fine with a good Topicality argument. I am ok with counterplans if they are run well and carefully explained.

I will not do any of the work for you. If there is an obvious contradiction, but it is not pointed out. I won't consider it.

I love a good disadvantage with a direct link to the affirmative case.

In rebuttals, I greatly appreciate impact calculus and weighing the round.

Things I don't like: redundancy, claiming that the other team "lied" about something, condescending remarks, generic arguments used as a timesuck.

I consider it an honor to be judging -- thank you for choosing to debate!

Former Newton debater, I’m good at following arts, but I’ve had some time off, so just be clear.

T: I dig topicality, don't drop the standards and voters and 1. aff better have counter s/v, 2. neg better address them.

DA: Just understand the story and be able to explain links.

CP: I don't buy a lot of CPs, but if its your strat, run it, just bring me along for the ride.

CX: Assertive, not mean. Use this to point out flaws.

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

I am a Stock Issues Judge

I like plenty of clash

Please no Kritike's or Counterplans

Topicality is very important, must include all parts or will be dropped from my flow

Clear speaking tone and mild to rapid delivery is acceptable with good articulation

Flowing is important I will keep track of dropped arguments

TELL ME WHY YOU WON!!

Debated four years at Maize High School '20

Former assistant coach at Wichita East High School '20-'21

Duke 2024 (not debating)

Add me to the chain: jason.g.lin20@gmail.com

NCFL - PFD

There are 2 rules in PFD

-No Ks

-No Spreading

Overall

*I'm 2 years out from thinking about policy debate, so I will struggle some to keep up with national circuit speed. I will try my best. Decisions will also likely take longer. I can still watch lectures on 1.75x at least, #PortableSkills.

Tech > Truth, and evidence quality matters to me. I find a lot of cards are atrociously highlighted. That said, I don't wish to read through all your cards; Make arguments about them, so I don't need to default to ev.

Clarity > Speed - note, this is even more true for online debate. Speed = # of ideas effectively communicated to the judge.

Don't clip/steal prep. Let me emphasize again -- DON'T CLIP, actually physically mark cards when you say to mark cards. Stealing prep after a warning has great speaker point consequences.

Evidence comparison/argument resolution good. Shadow extension/no clash bad.

I would rather listen to a politics+CP debate than a kritik debate, but I would also rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. Ks must pass the make sense test

A well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by its "card name"

Cross x is a speech-I figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points

DA

- Disads are about story telling - If I can't explain the story of the DA back to you then I won't vote on it.

- I think link debates require the most skill, and I will focus on it heavily. Many internal links also are often sus but overlooked.

- Do turns case and comparative impact calc. Canned overviews without any change round-to-round are bad. Judge instruction is good. Impact calc about risk is also pretty convincing since I'm often left with two existential impacts

CP

- Great, but like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.

- CP's like consult or conditions that compete off certainty aren't great, but the aff can't blow it completely off either

- Floating PICs/Word PICs are pretty iffy for the neg--reading it as a K should solve most of the education impact, but I have yet to see many of these debates

T/Theory

- Blocks are good but no substitute for the line-by-line.

- I find a bunch of T-interps are arbitrary. Precision/predictability should prolly outweigh a marginal limits impact. However, negs that coherently connect their interpretation, violation, and standards with tangible impacts will be rewarded

- Default condo good. Somewhat high threshold, but I do recognize how forcing the aff to double turn themselves can (debatably) be problematic

- Perf Con is better utilized as a solvency takeout rather than a theoretical issue

FW

- Impact calc matters a bunch here; offense is key.

- I read both fairness and education impacts, and I don't have a strong preference for either against K affs.

- K affs in the direction of the topic are better for me

- new-ish to these debates

K

- I most likely only have a surface level understanding of your Kritik. Even less for postmodernist theories. More common K's like Cap and Security make more sense to me.

- Impact turning is often underutilized. Extinction first/heg good can be persuasive if done right

- Go more in-depth with each aff argument rather than shotgunning a billion perms. That increases my burden on the negative to disprove your arguments

I have four years of high school debate experience, and am now studying to become a debate/forensics coach in college.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, so I'll vote on whatever you tell me I need to be voting on. You frame the round. If no one tells me how to vote, I'll default to a stock issues judge.

If I have to default to stock issues judging, here's what I'm looking for:

Aff needs to win stock issues. For neg, offcase arguments are fine, but it's going to be hard to win the ballot without winning on any stock issues along with the offcase.

Generic DA's are ok, but please offer a compelling link to the aff.

Counterplans are also ok, but please make a compelling argument as to why I need to prefer the CP over the aff.

I'll listen to a topicality argument, but unless the violation is really obvious, it's really hard for me to justify a win based on T. If the neg runs topicality, but also runs case specific arguments, I probably won't take T into my decision.

If you are going to run a Kritik, make it good and make it make sense.

I'll clear up any questions you have.

I did 3 years of debate at Garden City High School 10ish years ago, this semester has been my first time judging. I'm an attorney if that's relevant to you, but I would classify myself as more of a lay judge so I just have some general comments/preferences.

I am a stock issues judge, with a little bit of policymaker.

Of course I want you to read your cards and cite your sources, but I need a full analysis. Debate is about persuasion and reading me your evidence is the opposite of persuasion. Look at me and tell me why I should vote aff/neg.

I need roadmaps and signposts. It helps you stay on track and it is critical for my flowing.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you I'm probably not voting for you.

If you're on the fence about arguing topicality just for a time filler, don't do it.

I don't mind kritiks, but I need you to break them down for me pretty well.

Don't drop arguments.

I look forward to seeing you!

Judging philosophy- KDC style at medium-fast speed

Preferences- when it comes to things like CPs, DAs, topicality and kritiks, I don't generally have a preference. Meaning as long as you are able to make it make sense to me through your presentation of your argument and debate skills it is good for me. That being said in the past I typically have issues with the link between extreme DAs (nuclear war, economic implosion, etc,). OCASIONALLY (very) a team will use some of these and get a winning ballot because they were able to make a clear link and defend it very well. I keep my political onions and past rounds experiences from interfering with the round I am judging and try my best to be a "blank slate"

Judging experience- I have been judging debate for the past 5 or 6 years and have judged from regular tournaments all the way up to state tournaments. Novice and experienced.

Educational background- I hold a Bachelors in Business Administration from Pittsburg State university where I majored in Finance and marketing with a minor in international business and I am currently enrolled at The University of Kansas School of Nursing where I will graduate with by BSN in 2025.

Add me to the email chain: alonso.pena91@gmail.com

***The big picture***

1. I have 17 years of involvement with debate. I debated in high school and in college at Garden City (2006-2010) and Kansas State (2011, 2014-2017), respectively. In high school I did "traditional" policy debate, and in college I did critical and performance style debate. I read poetry and talked about queer and trans people of color, Chicanx people, decolonial feminist studies, performance studies, etc. I coached high school debate in Kansas for the last 7 years, and this is my first year coaching at UTSA.

2. Debate is a persuasive activity, so your primary objective should be to persuade me to vote for you.

3. I try to be as open-minded as possible, and I will base my decision on the things that happen in the round. That being said, I embody a lived experience, and I will not pretend that I can separate myself from that. I am a queer chicanx man, and I acknowledge that my positionality influences how I move in the world.

4. Do "you" - Be yourself to the best degree possible, and I will be happy. I believe the beauty of debate is that students get power and control over how they express themselves through argumentation.

5. Please don't annoy me about these two things. Prep-stealing and evidence sharing. When you say you are done with prep, I expect you to be ready to give your roadmap and share evidence.

***The Details***

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good disad debate. To win a disad in front of me you will need (at least) a unique link and an impact. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts. If you're reading politics, then you should know that I am NOT a news watcher, so you should be explaining your politics disad. Also, I generally dislike politics disads because their stories feel like pieced together lies. I'm not saying I won't vote for them, but it'll be an uphill battle for you.

Counterplans

Counterplans are cool. I am more likely to be persuaded by counterplans that do the following: (1) have text that is clear and understandable and/or well explained, (2) solves the affirmative, or at least enough of the affirmative to outweigh the aff impacts, (3) have a net benefit or external impact that only the counterplan can solve.

Process counterplans (such as executive orders CPs, courts CPs, etc.) are typically less persuasive to me, but I will vote for them if they solve the aff and have a net benefit.

PICS (Plan inclusive counterplans) are cool, but they should have some basic theoretical defense as to why PICing out of part of the aff is legitimate and good.

Critiques

I enjoy them. To win a K in front of me you will need to win a framing question, a link to the affirmative, and an impact or implication. You should read an alternative, but I am willing to consider voting for a K without an alternative if you tell me why I should. I have a pretty good foundation on critical literature, but you should not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpacked. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.

On the affirmative, if you don't answer the K's framework I will be less persuaded by the affirmative.

Topicality

I think topicality debates can be really good and fun to watch when they are done well. I am persuaded by the following: (1) A reasonable definition and interpretation (2) A well-defined violation, or an explanation of how the affirmative is outside of the resolution, (3) Standards, or defense of why your interpretation is the best way to determine what is topical/untopical. and (4) voters, or reasons why I should vote on topicality in this particular debate.

If the negative doesn't win standards and voters I am way less likely to be persuaded to vote negative on topicality.

Speed

I don't have the quickest ear any more. I need pen time and I need moments where you are speaking to me and not at me. Spreading on zoom doesn't work for me. I cannot keep up and I'm going to be fully honest about it.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

I use she/her pronouns.

I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.

Include me in the evidence sharing chain: osilverman@sacredheartknights.org

Fair debate:

I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.

Speed and Flowing:

I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.

Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.

Voting:

I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.

I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.

I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.

I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.

I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.

I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.

I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.

Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School in Kansas. Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches andCEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching multiple cx teams at NSDA nationals and taking 1st or 2nd at State pretty much every year from 2011 to 2021.

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

*Disclaimer*: I'm a parent judge. I know what I am doing but I am not an expert at debate by any means and this paradigm is being written with assistance from my son.

I default to policymaker, but will become tabula rasa if framework is presented to me.

You can speak quickly, but I have to be able to understand what you are saying for me to listen. If I can't understand you I don't care about what you are saying.

In regards to Disadvantages, I don't like impacts that are unrealistic. I rarely listen to nuke war impacts. I'd rather you use realistic impacts that are highly likely. Other than that, specific links are preferred but not absolutely necessary.

In rebuttals you need to tell me why I should vote for you and why I should not vote for the other team. If you don't lay out a reason I should vote for you, I most likely won't do so.

I will rarely vote on topicality so don't run it unless the aff is ridiculously untopical.

Do not run a counterplan unless you are very good at them. If you run it wrong it will just confuse me and I probably will not vote for you in that case.

I will listen to theory, but you have to explain it very well.

I don't like kritiks so don't run them.

Email Chain: brandons3333@outlook.com

Please add me to any email chain made in round because that will ultimately help me dissect your argumentation and relay that importance to round.

I am the South High School assistant debate coach and I did policy debate for 4 years at Salina High School South. I did KDC and DCI circuits in high school so I'm well versed in most styles of debate. In regards to round etiquette , first rule is to make a safe environment for every debater in the room. No one wants to walk into a round that is filled with hostility. Use the correct pronouns for people...point blank, please be respectful to others. When it comes to argumentation I am open to listen to anything. I flow the round and will be in tune with everyone debating so please make sure to extend and have a clear direction of where you want to take your argumentation in the round. When it comes to my judging style I tend to vote on stock issues, but again I am completely open to anyway the round goes so be critical but also make sense. When it comes to speed I can handle spreading as long as you are clear with your taglines and please make sure to signpost. On a line by line basis slow down to articulate your argumentation. I'm not a fan of time sucks, if you're reading an argument tell my why it's important in the round or I won't vote on it. I love theory and K's as long as they clearly relate to the debate. I read Fem and Queer theory in high school but am willing to listen to anything. If there are any other questions please feel free to ask before round.

I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.

Please share what you plan on reading

email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com

Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.

I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.

I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.

If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

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.

This is my first year judging debate. I will give the win to the best argument.

I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.

Things I dislike:

Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.

Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.

*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.

* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.

Position on the following:

Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.

Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I see disadvantages as very important points in the round. I don't know much about K debate. Be a great communicator. Please provide great evidence and analysis.

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.