Spartan Forensics Invitational
2021 — NSDA Campus, KS/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI 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.
I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.
Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).
I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.
As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.
If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.
Update January 10, 2025
Questions? email robegan3@gmail.com
GENERAL THOUGHTS
I am the current debate, forensics and speech instructor at Newton High School. I formerly coached and taught debate, forensics and speech at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.
In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.
Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.
Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!
POLICY (CX) DEBATE
I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.
Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.
Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!
PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE
Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE
If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.
INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP
Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.
INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS
I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!
Mike Harris
USD 259
2024 - Back in action with a flash drive, G2's and an AI trained to flow on my Google Doc template without me lifting a finger. JK about some of that. Still running speech and debate professional development for schools and districts, but not teaching and coaching daily. Lacking IP specific topic knowledge and research. I haven't read my old paradign in a while nd it probably deserves an update. Better ask me questions before the round.
Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.
2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.
I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:
I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.
Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.
Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.
CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.
Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.
Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.
Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.
Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.
All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]
Hello. I am an English teacher at Lansing High School. I have no debate experience. It's important respectful and use evidence to support claims not just opinions. I need it to be clear and slow.
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.
Hi! My name is Chase! I was in competitive speech for 4 years at Andover High School and 1 year at Kansas State University. In 2019, I was Kansas' State Champion in Original Oratory. I was also a National Octafinalist and Quarterfinalist in OO at the 2019 & 2020 National Tournaments. During my time in speech at Kansas State University, I was a National Qualifier in both Persuasion and Communication Analysis (Rhetorical Criticism). I am a public speaking instructor and Master's student in communication studies at Kansas State University.
Though I may look like a tough judge on paper, I would love to talk about your performance after the round! I sincerely believe that every voice has the opportunity to do something amazing and would love to help you find that voice! For any information that may seem unclear on the ballot you receive, feel free to email me at chasejordan9@gmail.com and I'll do my best to explain!
Public Address
While an inherently interesting thesis or structuring of a prompt/question is important, I am big on delivery. Regardless of event, you are not just a speaker, but an advocate. Appropriate inflection gives your argument the rhetorical flourish needed to set you above your competition. Every gesture or movement should have a purpose. Make that purpose clear with verbal and nonverbal cues. Tension management is very important to me. During your speaking time, you are the master of the room. It is in your best interest to control it in the way that makes your impacts land with conviction. But above anything else, be authentic. I want to not only hear your voice, but see it. The persona you choose to share via your Hook/AGD/Vehicle should be an extension of your personality, not an act to pander to me.
Interp
Though acting events are not typically known for explicit advocacy, the opportunities for implicit argumentation make a big difference when exploited to their greatest potential. As long as the casting is ethical, I am a big fan of this style of interp. Tech is also a big thing I watch for when judging. Be sure your movements are executed with purpose and confidence. But the most important part of interp to me is character differentiation. Distinct character traits should come through with your neutral postures and lines. Your snapping should be quick and fluid to make this distinction easier to identify.
I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.
*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.
I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. My default is Policy Maker. I am fine with speed if you are very clear, but be prepared for me to not flow nearly as details because I'm gonna be focused on actually absorbing your arguments.
K:
These are fine, but you better know how to run it well and not just use it to waste your opponents' time and kick out in the end.
Framework/T:
If you run T (which I highly encourage), make it good! It is everything in a round and, yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it. Same goes for Framework for the most part.
DAs:
Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know there are alt causes and I can't ignore that.
Counterplans:
Can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.
Plan:
As a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.). The later into the season we get, the more I expect you to have answers to basic questions and not punt to the "my partner will bring that up in the next speech."
CX:
Yes, I will flow your answers and, yes, your answers matter. The point of CX is "clarification" and I consider it binding in the round. If you provide an answer in CX and contradict it in the next speech, I weigh this against your evidence/plan. You are the advocate for your plan, using the evidence you have gathered as a means to support your ideas. If you aren't consistent in your idea or advocacy, it undermines my confidence in the plan itself.
"It's Against the Rules of Debate":
Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.
Note: When reading my ballot, I will give feedback on the argumentation and warrants in evidence. I will highlight if ideas are not accurate or true, but I won't vote on my own knowledge. I will only vote on items said in round. I say this because my ballot may come off like judge intervention, but I will try to be very clear on what I heard in round that caused me to vote and what opportunities you missed.
I approach side debate like court cases - the SQ has presumption of innocence the aff has to prove that a change is warranted. Presumption can win my ballot for the neg if the aff is unprepared. That being said - I will only vote on arguments that are extended from evidence read in round. I won't vote on arguments presented from "What if scenarios". If you, as the neg, say "What if Trump kills the plan" then you better read evidence saying he will, otherwise I will vote for the aff on what we know will happen.
Step 1: I pref fairness always - with that in mind. I believe debate to be a game of rules to establish fair round within the context of topic education.
So - I will NOT VOTE FOR A K AFF. (If they run a K aff, just run T and keep it through the round and you win my ballot)
I am not saying that complex argumentation is not welcome but out of predictable fairness the aff job is to affirm the resolution - not affirm any school of thought.
I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking - at the end of the day I believe survivability of this activity hinges on the idea that this is a game, but one that emphasis communication.
Outside of that, I'm tabularasa (I spend most of the rounds just listening for the words "Judge, vote on this issue" If both sides say vote for this issue - tell me why your issue is better than your opponents. Think of it like the Voter debate on T.
CP - I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.
K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.
DA - Huge voter with me especially if weighted in the round. I'm fine with generic links so long as your provide the explanation through analysis on how it links to the 1AC when you read it. Don't just post doc throw it out there after pressed.
Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive and the negative can contradict itself - conditionality doesn't shield you. I won't vote on vagueness because the aff doesn't have plan planks. If they do indeed make themselves a moving target - point it out and I'll probably vote on it.
Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Show specific examples in the violation. Time suck T or poorly extended T drive me nuts. T drives me nuts.
I will always vote on warrant presses - if their tag says "Donald Trump will do X" then there should be a sentence in the card that echos that. Power-tagging will kill you on speaks for me, if not cost you the whole round.
As far as case arguments - I am a firm believer in the burden of proof of the 1AC. The plan text should absolutely align with the solvency cards. Don't just make loose assumptions. You have infinite prep time, it's not hard to find cards that support your plan - if you can't - it's a bad plan. Brining up more specific evidence in the 2A is abusive in my eyes.
I will always want to be on the speech drop. If you have a paper copy of evidence I may ask you for a digital version.
I hate national circuit norms regarding cross-x (it should be closed, imo), and general ego flexing. Stand up when you give your speeches, don't do open speeches, treat each other and me with respect, and while I don't care about clothing choices because I understand the barriers economically that can occur, If you roll in wearing sweats and a "I <3 MILFS" shirt/ sweater, I'm not gonna lie...I will be looking for any reason to vote you down. There is such a thing as too far in the opposite direction of hyper-professionalism.
If you read this far - good job. I apologize if I come off nit-picky but as debate is a public speaking activity, if I am your only judge, you should try to meet me where I am at. If I am on a panel and you choose not to go for me, I get it and I won't be upset. I respect you for using your voice to speak whatever truth you are advocating for, but if it kills competitive equity then I will respect it, but not vote for it.
Any other questions - please ask.
Xoxo- Gossip Girl
Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE
239 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.
Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.
Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.
Although I did not debate in high school or college, I have always loved presenting in my education experiences and beyond. I was a member of "Toastmasters International" and I had won many speaking awards at tournaments in both individual speaker and humorous speaker divisions.
I have been in the Architecture and Design field for over 30 years as well as a college professor in my field and firmly believe debate, presentation and speech classes are the most valuable activities in high school and college. In many scenarios in life you are selling the “intangible” and that is difficult for people to understand. I have always taught my students (and my own 5 children) how important being a great speaker is and how that translates to a great leader when you can articulate, inspire others, and show such confidence in what you are passionate about.
I started as a high school debate judge when my now, 22-yr old son Ben (who is currently in Law School and ranks 3rd in his class), began debate as a freshman in high school, won 3rd place 2-Speaker at State his junior year and won 4 Speaker State his Senior year. He also did so well his first year in Forensics, he went to Nationals in Washington D.C. I became highly invested in his debate “career” even as he continued in college with Mock Trial and again when he became the President of Mock Trial his last year of undergrad at KU. I have judged both seasonal debate and State debate 2-Speaker and 4-Speaker.
As an educator, I feel in high school it is all about trying new things as a debater and really learning the “ropes” while taking some risks too. I therefore do not want a strict Paradigm at this level as a judge for high schoolers. However, I am a rule-follower and expect students to do so as well. I will also point out the basics if they are overlooked (arriving on time, being organized/prepared, stock issues, etc.). There are of course certain other judging criteria I consider and will explain below.
Please note I will use my computer for flowing during your rounds, however, I have excellent skills to listen, type very fast and form my thoughts at the same time. I do my best to give thorough detailed comments that I hope will give each student and coach suggestions for improvements from what I take-away from each debate in which I am honored to be a judge.
1. 1. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance in my priorities in judging debates. I will look at both presentation skills & how persuasive the arguments are presented.
2. 2. My approach to judging debate is a combination of 3: Skills emphasis, Stock Issues emphasis and Policy Maker emphasis.
3. 3. Speed: Fairly Rapid Delivery Acceptable as long as presentation is clearly enunciated – very rapid speed discouraged. I prefer you not to “Spread”. You need to know your region, and the region I judge, it is not the norm. Note: I am originally from Chicago, and a naturally very fast speaker myself, but again, I believe it is more important to follow the regional norms/know your audience and make the debate understandable.
4. 4. Counterplans are Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach. Remember “is it non-unique or not?”
5. 5. Topicality is Very Important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue. Keep your focus and structure of your debate.
6. 6. I find Generic Disadvantages Acceptable, IF specific links are clearly analyzed. Remember “it has to have a link to be unique.” Strong Unique Links!!
7. 7. I find Kritiks Reprehensible; I prefer specific real-world arguments.
-