I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com

I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.

Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.

CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.

Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”

Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.

Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you

Experience: I competed in high school policy debate for three years and LD and IX for one year. I have judged a few topics since then, especially in 2020, but have not had the opportunity to do so on the 2021 policy topic.

Speed: I am unfamiliar with this year's topic, but am generally comfortable with moderate-speed speech (please don't spread; I won't be able to track what you're saying. If you're uncertain, assume I'd rather you go slower and I understand what you're saying).

Voting Issues: I'll evaluate the round based primarily on core issues you centered the debate on, but I won't ignore stock issues or blatant abuses of topicality (if topicality is brought up in the round). Communication skills are secondary to your actual argumentation; provided that I am able to understand your line of reasoning and your arguments, that's what matters most to me more than pretty speeches (though those are always a bonus).

Misc.: Roadmaps and signposting are crucial; don't trust me to inherently know what you're responding to based on context. I also prefer it if you reference a specific subpoint/tag as you respond to points + cards, because I often miss author/dates in favor of recording the substance of the card. I also have an auditory processing disorder, so clarity is important (don't worry; I catch most everything/can figure it out from context clues, but I appreciate clarity + general explanation if necessary in your speeches to help me out).

I'll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for, but I will default to policymaker if not held to any framework. I'm good with pretty much every argument y'all throw out – if you want to go hard in the paint on something weird, whether that's stock issues or game theory, win the framework discussion and I will vote for it. except aspec and other bad-faith arguments. for these, use your better judgment. if something is clearly BS, don't run it and pretend that it's not, please.

speed is cool. please signpost/keep the flow clean. it makes everyone's life easier. I know this year is weird because everything is online & due to connection issues I might not be able to catch everything you say – if this happens, I will fill in the best that I can off of the speech doc. if I still have holes, I will ask both teams after the speech for what was said in the hope that at least some of the competitors were able to hear it. be honest, please. if I figure out that you lied about what was said (either by you or an opponent) during an internet lapse, you WILL lose. no questions asked. if only the team giving the speech was able to hear, I'm not sure what I'll do. we can hash that out in round. just know that if you end up dropping/undercovering something because of connection issues, I will give you *some* leeway in the very next speech to address it. I know that probably isn’t perfectly fair, but I think it's the best that can be made out of a bad situation.

finally, I know next to nothing about this year's topic, so please be cognizant of that. throwing around acronyms is probably going to confuse me if no one ever tells me what they stand for. during the immigration year, some teams would talk about H-1B visas for an entire round without ever explaining what they actually were. I don't need you to hold my hand, just tell me what stuff means the first time you say it and I'll catch on. the same goes for Ks, although in a different form. I'll piece together the argument the best that I can off of the speech doc, but a little 15 second elevator pitch at the end of the 1NC giving me the basics in layman's terms will be good for everyone.

feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

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 have been a coach for 13 years and most of those have been in a 3A school.  My paradigm is pretty straight forward for the Aff team.  The Aff should be able to uphold their burden of proof and respond to all Neg arguments.  I am also not a huge fan of K Affs.

The Neg side of the paradigm is a bit more in depth.  I believe every case is non-topical in some way shape or form.  I hate Generic DA’s and will not vote on them.  DA’s should be specific to the case if you want me to vote on them.  I like CP’s.  K’s are things I despise and loath if you run one I will not weigh it in the round.  Besides these things anything else is fair game on the Neg.

I prefer a moderate speed in the debate.  I should be able to understand you and be able to flow the round and see the clash of arguments.  I am not big on abuse arguments there is a time and a place for some of them but they should not be a go to argument.

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 11 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

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.

Last updated 9/26/2022

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General/Sparknotes if you're about to walk into round:

1. I'll vote on anything that isn't offensive

2. I won't vote for you if you're discriminatory in the round towards anyone (including your own partner)

3. Clarify pronouns before the round. If you misgender your opponent after pronouns were stated, you're getting lowered speaks and if they make it a voting issue I'd be inclined to agree unless you explain why you shouldn't lose the round for it. If it comes across as deliberate you're losing the round.

4. Unless you don't have a choice, try to run arguments you understand

5. I'm going to prefer one card with good warrants over 5 cards with weak warrants.

6. Please give roadmaps and signpost. If you’re going fast allow for pen time (or keyboard time, as my recent flowing habits have gone digital).

7. Please don't be extremely cocky or arrogant. I won't vote against you for this, but I will give you lower speaks.

8. With some exception, I use speaks as a way to gauge your ability as a debater. It doesn’t matter how pretty you talk. I give you speaks based off of how solid your argumentation is. You say something really smart that makes a lot of sense? That’s good for your speaks. You have a simple debate that you did well on in terms of the flow? That’s good for your speaks. Drop stuff in one speech and pick it up in another? That's bad for your speaks. I think using speaks to gauge pretty-talking is ableist.

9. Please don't cut your cards to make it look like they say things they don't actually say. It's a bad practice and makes for gross debates. It's basically faking evidence, which is pretty not-cool of you to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy Debate

I lean policymaker but please have inherency. If you’re a K aff, your advocacy should be some sort of action that can be taken. If your advocacy in a vacuum wouldn’t change anything then I’m inclined towards believing it doesn’t solve (I.e. don’t just say “I think x power structure is bad and should get the ballot for saying that.”)

I'm pretty tab and will vote on just about anything. As long as you don't say/do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, bigoted, etc., I'm probably not going to get mad at you for anything in a round.

A big thing for me is when the Aff team knows what they're talking about. The more confidently you're able to deliver your arguments, the better off you're going to be with me. This largely goes for neg as well. I'll be much more lenient on this earlier in the season though.

You probably shouldn't run kritiks or counterplans if you don't understand how they work.

For 2022-23I know nothing about the topic (assume I know the wording of the resolution and not much else), but I'll still know what all of your debate jargon means.

I don't vote on any arguments not brought up in the 2NR or 2AR, so make sure those speeches summarize why you won the round.

Good evidence is better than bad evidence; bad evidence is (sometimes) better than no evidence at all.

I pay attention to CX but don’t flow it. I understand that you likely have emotional responses to some things that get brought up in CX, but don’t get unnecessarily emotional and angry (Side Note: I know that statement/phrasing might make it seem like I’m one of those judges who comments on fem debaters doing this whenever they’re just doing cx the same way other masc debaters in the room do, but please note that I’m aware of this trend and do everything I can to avoid playing into it).

To get into specifics on different types of args:

K Affs: Go for it. I think you need to have some kind of topic link that connects your case to the topic's lit base, unless your case is a kritik of the debate space itself (super valid). If you're doing a performance, I need a trigger warning if it's going to get loud (and obviously if it contains triggering content). I think a lot of great K affs have tons of offense built into the 1AC that pre-empts framework args, so please make sure to utilize that if your case does. I don't know where I stand on the "Debate is a game" vs "Debate is about education" vs "Debate is a spot for organizing social movements" question, so I treat all of these arguments with equal weight. Don't assume that I know your specific lit base. Read your args and do whatever, but I *will* prioritize the safety and mental health (note: Not to be confused with *comfort*) of everyone in the room over you reading your argument.

Theory: If it’s dropped I’ll vote for it. Can’t be too specific here without knowing what you want to run. Never had many of these debates myself. The exception to this is ASpec, which I ran all the time. That being said, ask them to spec in CX if you’re going to run a spec arg. If they don’t spec something that meets your interp, THEN you run your arg.

T: I get it. It’s a thing you always run. It’s a BS time suck in most rounds that you kick in the 2NC. But please run it well. Have all the standard pieces. For the Aff, I don’t think you need a full-fledged response time T every time. Did the neg read your counter-interp as their T interp? Articulate the hell out of a we-meet and you’re good for me. Neg, if they do this and they’re wrong, wreck them on it. You can run an RVI in front of me, but the negonly has to respond with any sort of substance and I won't vote for it (literally just don't drop it). Also please impact out your standards. Ask for caselists, provide TVAs, and articulate what this means for debate. I default to competing interps barring anything wild (The USFG is not the United States Farmer’s Guild).

CP: Don’t go for more than 1 in the 2NR. I mostly ran Dispo as a way to avoid the condo debate, but you gotta know what Dispo means if you’re doing that. I likely won’t vote on Condo if they go for the CP if there’s only 1 or 2 Counterplans in the 1NC. I could be persuaded to change this stance. Advantage CPs are cool I guess, but like they feel pretty boring and out of left field unless you argue them well. It’s pretty spicy when you can have a “Even if we kick the advantage CP, the thing it solves for is still an internal link takeout for the advantage” type thing. Agent CPs are valid and pretty great with an accompanying DA. I don’t default to sufficiency framing without you telling me to. Please for the love of debate make a presumption flips Aff arg in the 2AC/1AR.

DA: Good. Spicy. Basic debate. 2NC Case turn impact extensions are spicier. Terminal impacts are fine but also open up the debate to a bunch of BS like Spark and such. I prefer warming impacts to nuke war because the probability debate becomes a lot more evidenced, but if you got good war ev then run it. Also please don’t make me vote on Climate Change doesn’t exist. I will if I have to, but lower speaks for you bc of it.

K: I’ve read Cap, D&G, Puar, and Set Col. I’m also now getting into ableism. If the other team does something explicitly bigoted in round and you wanna make an arg on it I don’t need an Alt, so you don’t need to pull out a K. If they use ableist language, I don’t care if you’re a person with a disability or not, just say “They said ____, which is an ableist slur” (preferably a card here). “Vote them down to reject ableism”. That isn’t saviorism, that’s being ethical. Rejection is a valid Alt. Floating piks are gross but allowable. It’s pretty sus if the 2N takes the K but not the Alt and the 1NR takes the Alt to avoid CX.

Case Debate: Have a solvency advocate. Have actual Inherency please. Have a plan that fixes a problem that’s topical, or have an advocacy statement that addresses a problem with some connection to the topic. Terminal solvency deficits exist, but the bar is high. That being said, a great 2NR on solvency says “even if you don’t buy the terminal solvency deficit, every reduction in solvency gives more weight to the impacts of the DA.”

Impact Calc: Maybe I’m a bit unique in this perspective, but the aff’s job is to prove they make the world better. I don’t care if Aff wins twenty extinction scenarios if the neg wins one, because then extinction happens both ways and the Aff hasn’t met that burden, so I vote neg on presumption. Again, make a presumption flips Aff arg if there’s a CP. I also consider args about things like structural violence in the case of like “Well if we all die to nuke war either way, at least there’s less structural violence up until that point.” I’m good with framing args. I’m sick of hearing the Bostrum or Piatelli cards read without explanation of what they mean (2AC overview is a great place for this). Please show me you understand your framing args beyond the tag.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Value-Criterion LD Debate

1. Agree beforehand that you're having (or not having) a value-criterion debate if your circuit doesn't always do that.

2. My experience with this debate format is limited. I understand the basic idea of how cases are constructed, but I didn't do Value-Criterion debate long enough to see a wide range of case styles. I mostly ran Util/consequentialism or social contract (Yeah I basically forced it to be a policy round, I didn't say I was good lol). My limited experience means I don't have anything super substantive to say that's specific to this format of debate. I'll say that I'll be forgiving towards the aff in terms of speaks because I feel like speech times skew things more towards the neg in this format.

3. If everyone in the round is okay with it, spreading is totally fine by me. I think it helps remedy some of the time issues previously mentioned as long as it's a technique accessible to everyone. That being said, don't go more than 1.5x the fastest your opponent has gone in the round (with the obvious exception of the AC. Do what you need to to get through the speech in time).

4. The NC needs to have some sort of offense against the affirmative as well as presenting your own value and criterion (unless you're being bold and not reading your own VC in favor of directly refuting that the aff is a good idea under their own framework). I won multiple rounds across the few tournaments by starting the AR with "They didn't contest any part of the aff except the value and criterion, so if I win that you prefer my VC you vote aff.

5. I pay attention to CX but don’t flow it. I understand that you likely have emotional responses to some things that get brought up in CX, but don’t get unnecessarily emotional and angry (Side Note: I know that statement/phrasing might make it seem like I’m one of those judges who comments on fem debaters doing this whenever they’re just doing cx the same way other masc debaters in the room do, but please note that I’m aware of this trend and do everything I can to avoid playing into it).

6. The last speech for both sides should make it clear why you won the round. If it isn't brought up in your last speech then it isn't getting voted on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any more questions, feel free to email me at andrewflory01@gmail.com

Email: ian_haas@live.com

Hi! My name is Ian Haas. I debated for 3 years in high school at Lawrence Free State, primarily in the Open/KDC division. I’m a few years removed from this time so be sure to still explain your more complicated arguments well. I’m chill with anything you want to run as long as you explain and support it well. Everything that is bulleted below represents preferences, but I’ll vote on anything if you convince me it’s worth voting on.

• I think cohesive storytelling is important, particularly toward the end of the debate. I prefer when teams write my ballot for me in the rebuttals.
• Impact calculus is always good to summarize where we are in the debate.
• Truth informs tech. In the line by line, dropped arguments should be pointed out explicitly and the importance explained if you want me to vote on them. I probably won’t vote on a dropped argument on the flow if it’s not acknowledged by anyone.
• With speed, I’m more comfortable with slower rounds because that’s how my debate experience was. I can handle some speed, but if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll let you know and make it obvious I’m not flowing. If I’m flowing, I’m keeping up with you.
• Smart analytical arguments are good.
• Obviously, be nice. Excessive rudeness and whatnot can/will be reflected in speaker ranks.

These are all just preferences. The biggest thing is that you actually win the debate. Again, I’ll vote on anything or for anything if you convince me it’s worth voting on or for.

Policy Debate Wichita East 1993-1997

Policy Debate Wichita State 1997-2000

Head Coach Wichita Heights 2002-2005

Head Coach Andover High School 2005-Present

I have judged many debate rounds over the years and honestly I am open to just about any style. I hesitate to call myself tabula rosa as I lean more towards policy maker, but have voted for K's on many occasions. If you are going to run a K, just make sure that you have a good explanation of how it works in the context of the debate. I do think that topicality is important and will absolutely vote on it if it's won in the debate. I am fine with generic positions, DA, CP, or K.

Speed - I don't see has many fast rounds as I used to, but I am generally fine with rapid delivery as long as you are clear. I would like to be on the email chain or in the evidence drop.

Things to avoid in the debate - One major pet peeve of mine is teams who overly use "cut the card here." I understand doing this a time or two during a speech, but if you are doing this for every card, this is a problem. I believe that this one of the key reasons clipping is such a problem.

If your opponent takes time to tell you their pronouns, I expect you to use them.

Feel free to ask many any specific questions that you have. Good luck!

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).

Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

I judge very highly based on speaking. Debate is not just the art of "being right". It is the art of convincing someone, namely me, that you are right. If you have a great flow and argumentation, but speak incredibly fast with no emotional or weighted impacts spoken in a dispassionate tone, ill be more likley to vote for your opponant who spoke better. That is not to say I dont flow, but I do not vote exclusively off of it. It is a balance. You must have good argumentation spoken well. Obviously if you demolish the flow and it is not close I will vote soly based on that. Outside that scenario, however, I vote very highly on speaking. Do not spread or I WILL vote you down.

 

In congressional debate specifically, I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY discourage one sided debate. If you give the second or third speech on a POL in a row (or motion to open debate on a POL specifically just to give a speech and its the only speech on that side) i will vote you down 

Former Puff competitor, looks for strong evidence and clear speaking. Why should I care and why does your argument weigh stronger than your opponents. Why is your position the best outcome for the most people? No spreading and be polite to competitors.

I did policy debate for 4 years and LD (traditional V/C LD) for 2 years in central Kansas.

Policy Debate

I am not picky on argumentation, just make sure that it is cohesive and makes sense. I will adapt to whatever the participants bring to the debate room.

I tend to weigh stock issues very heavy, so affirmative must not only show that there is a problem now but that there is a legitimate block to the plan in the status quo.

Non-Negotiables

Do not create unsafe spaces in debate. If you have questions or concerns please bring them up when all parties are present before the debate begins.

Speed

Please be clear and signpost. I will let you know if your rate of speaking is too much for me. Slow down for line by line.

Adding me to the email-chain will also solve any continuity issues that may come up in round:

sara-kilpatrick@hotmail.com

Theory

Don't use it as a time suck. If you read it, make it make sense.

Kritiks

I am open minded to any literature but I did lean more towards Fem when I was a debater, so I am not incredibly well versed in other Ks (just make sure it makes sense)

Lincoln-Douglas

I have a preference for traditional value/criterion style of LD and will base my voting on that, but if you show me that the newer policy esk style is better then I am willing to operate under that paradigm.

I am cool with speed, just make sure that I have access to ev or that you at least slow for tags and the V/C level.

I am down with critiquing the resolution or the other teams positions (however I do not think that it should be structured like a K policy flow).

Let me know if y'all have any questions

I'm a former 4-year LD (primary) and policy (secondary) debater from Wichita East. I'm a Tabla Rosa style judge and will try hard to only make my decisions based on what is said in-round, but, if no framing is provided, I will default to my personal methods of judging. In LD by default, I will decide the winner using the winning criteria to see whether the Aff or Neg best achieves the winning value. In policy by default, I will use the winning framework to decide which impacts to prioritize then see if the Aff or status quo is a net benefit. I'm always okay with spreading(LD or policy) if you slow down on tag lines and analytics. Make sure you emphasize any information you want me to notice in cards.

For LD, I will default to the traditional value/criteria debate when I make my decision. However, if you all want a policy style debate, I can use that to determine the round, but you will need to make and win the argument that a policy style evaluation is better.

For Policy, anything goes. You can spread. You can use the K. You can use topical counter-plans. I don't care what you do, but the other team can always win the argument that some practice in unfair, so cover your rear if you're going to play it risky. More than anything, DO IMPACT CALCULUS! Otherwise I'm just having to guess what the best way to evaluate your arguments are.

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

Current Head Coach at Lansing High School in Kansas, Previously Head Coach at Buhler High School in Kansas (traditional-style debate 4A school). I judge rounds regularly, and have for the last 10 years.
I did not debate in High School or College but DID participate in Forensics @ Eudora High

General Things

Speed - clarity is important, Im more on the slow end of fast debate. Add me to the email chain and I can usually keep up ok. larissa.maranell@usd469.net

FYI: I have a degree in Biology, this is included b/c my threshold for answering crap science args is low. Im not gonna do the work for the opponent but they wont need to do much. Also bad logic hurts your ethos.

In Policy Rounds -

I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.

Kritiks: I enjoy them but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, If you cant make sure your opponent understands the K its not productive to the round, to you, or to anyone. You also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it. (TLDR- don't be lazy and I will weigh it)

I love a good T debate :)

In LD Rounds -

Value and Value Criterion are not just buzzwords, they are central to the LD form of debate, if you read them just to move on to your policy framework that isn't the point.

In PFD Rounds -

PFD is not Policy.

Make sure you give me framework in the 1st speech, Judge instruction is key.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

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.

Last Updated: Summer 2022

Assistant Speech Coach for 4 years at Lawrence High

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years and Speech all 4 years.

Undergraduate at University of Kansas

Please email me with further questions: easvetlak@gmail.com

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Experience: I competed in this event from 2014-2018. Have been coaching this event for 4 years.

What I look for:

- Early speeches should both provide general pros/cons for the bill while referencing the bill and what each section is changing.

- Direct clash is very very important to making Congressional debate, debate. However, when referencing speeches, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. If you are adding to an argument, make it clear why your addition was necessary.

- Presiding over a chamber can be just as important as giving speeches

- Knowing the rules of the chamber and tournament, even when not the PO, is important.

- Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. It will show up on your ballot and when necessary, be reported.

POLICY

Overall: This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out myself (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with most basic arguments and as long as you ACTUALLY do the work to explain whatever link, impact, etc. I should be voting on.

Speed: I didn't spread in high school but if you give me the speech docs I can keep up for the most part. Don't be crazy.

T: I really don't care if you run T and don't go for it if it makes at least a little sense. I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.

Theory/Framework: For theory and framework you can run the basics but it would need a walk through. I mean tell me where and why I'm voting.

DA's: Great in front of me long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.

K's: If you're going to make this argument you have to be going very slow and walk me through it. Probably not the best strategy in front of me but if its important to you and you do it well go for it.

CP's: I like all most CP's. Again, if its complicated walk me through it. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it.) Aff- Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

Open cross is fine but don't be rude.

Don't be Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Rude comments about the other teams are also NEVER okay. Like that will show up on your ballot.

I would like the speech docs if you're doing an email chain or in out rounds.

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

Recent update: Theoretically, everything below is still true, but note that I've not touched debate in a few years so

1. I probably don't remember buzzwords and definitely don't know any new-fangled args, I reserve the right to vote you down bc you don't tell me what your words mean.
2. My ear is rusty, don't run me out of the room.

Other than that, have fun, win more offense than the other team.

-------------------------

Debated at Wichita East 2015-2019

Email: noahyust at gmail dot com

Affs

K/Planless: This is fine. Have a clear advocacy. Your answers to tusfg should be contextualized to your advocacy not just generic state engagement bad. I've read some PoMo nonsense on aff/neg and setcol on the neg... but you should presume I don't understand your K.

Soft left: I have never heard a "framing contention" compelling enough to make DAs go away. To do that you need to point out specific epistemological flaws in the DA; if you can do that, you probably don't need the "framing contention." I see these contentions as filler to make the 1AC as small as possible; which is is annoying, at least please make the 2AC fun. Also- I've yet to see a card tagged "x comes first" that seriously and literally means that x is worse than extinction. For me, Just sit on the fact that ur impact is the most probable.

Big Stick: sure yes.

Case

Impact turns: yes, more more more

Tusfg/Framework

I think debate is a game, but it can be more than a game. A good TVA makes a neg ballot very easy. Fairness is important to access education, but probably hard to win as an external impact. I dislike debaters making broad claims about their opponent's model of debate when they clearly have no idea what it's like to always read a plan/never read a plan (That's my way of saying be respectful).

T

I need you to paint very good pictures of your and your opponent's interpretations of the topic. Caselists are good but insufficient to accomplish this alone. Good TVAs are always good. I rarely went for T, probably not the t judge you want. I'm not sympathetic to warrantless buzzword spam.

Theory

Condo is probably good. Reject the argument>reject the team. Except in the case of condo. Excessive theory can be strategic but is always annoying.

K

Presume I don't know your lit. Link work is key, I think it determines the strength of your answers to perms and fw args. I dislike FrankenKs. Please, for the love of god, don't make me get out a new sheet for the overview.

DA

Yes, please do.

I think it is possible for a bad DA to be reduced to 0% probability via analytics and recutting ev. I.e. breaking a new Albanian ptx DA does not guarantee you a viable 2NR.

CP

I can be easily persuaded that delay, consult, offsets, and CPs that just rename the aff (see parole from the immigration topic) are theoretically illegitimate.

Affs should impact out each solvency deficit.

I default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

Speaks

28.5 is the middle

Things that help: Good jokes, good cadence, clarity, smart strategic decisions, evidence-based CX, having fun

Things that hurt: reading 7 one-line CPs, spreading through theory blocks, being unkind

Misc.

Disclosure is good!

I think like a 2A

don't round/steal prep time

Be nice. I reserve the right to vote you down for [bad things]