Open to all kinds of arguments as long as there are sources and links. Make your logical reasoning solid. Address T when warranted but don't waste the whole round on it. Other stock issues are just as important.

K's okay

CP's okay

Generic DA's need links

Make speed clear with signposts

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've been coaching Policy Debate for many years now but did not compete in high school as it was not offered. I did not debate in college.

My judging criteria include:

Communication skills are equally as important as the resolution of substantive issues. As a judge and community member, your brilliance does little good if you can't communicate it effectively. Part of the educational value of Debate is the public speaking component. Find that sweet spot of speed, volume, clarity, and engagement while being informative and resourceful.

I would say my paradigm or approach is a combination of Stock Issues and Tabula Rasa.

Counterplans are seldom used where my school debates but I do believe they have their place. I'm pretty big on providing clash with the Aff having the burden to prove that anything at all needs changed in the SQ according to their plan.

If you run T, run it well, and don't use it as a spare tire just because you have no effective, clashing evidence.

There will always be generic DA's but they probably won't tip the ballot scale.

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.

Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.

As a judge, I value the following:

A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.

Respect and professionalism between debaters.

Passion for the art of debate.

Insightfulness

Humility.

I do NOT appreciate the following:

Belittling your opponent

Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.

I have been in debate since 1988 either competing or coaching. I debated at the high school level and then in CEDA in college. I have been a high school debate coach for the last 25 years.

As far as a general paradigm, I would say that I am a policymaker that used to be tabula rasa. I still try to be as much a tab judge as I can, but with age and a distancing with particular divisions/circuits has made me default to a more of a policymaking paradigm.

So here are the highlights you are probably interested in.

Delivery: At one time, I was pretty quick, but my skills at following speed have decreased over the years. I'm generally fine with speed as long as you are clear.

Theory arguments: Used to be a huge fan of theory. Not so much any more. Definitely not a fan of the multiple worlds framework, but you're welcome to try and convince me otherwise.

Topicality: I know you're probably expecting me to say I hate T, but I actually am okay with it. That's not to say I'm a fan of it, but I'm not going to wholesale reject the position. I understand its place in debate as both a legit argument and as a strategic tool. All I ask is that you don't waste time running it.

K positions: Make sure you're explaining it to me. I coach in classification where kritiks and kritical affs are not really ran much. If you're going to go for it, make sure you explain it to me.

DA's: Fine with those. However, I do buy performative contradictions so be careful with what you run with them.

CP's: Traditional CP's are fine. If you're doing something like a PIC, I'm open to theory arguments from the Aff as to its legitimacy.

As for anything else, feel free to ask me in the room.

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is good or bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

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.