Greetings debaters,

I'm a former policy debater who has been out of the loop for quite a few years. This is my first tournament on this topic, so I don't know much about the resolution or specific cases and arguments this year.

Paradigm-wise, I consider myself fairly open to all sorts of argumentation. I urge debaters to run what you are most comfortable with and tell me what my role is and why. Specific preferences are as follows:

Policy: Please spend some time on impact comparison in the rebuttals. Tell me why your argument is more likely (probability), happens sooner (timeframe), or matters more (magnitude). Ideally, you can prove all three of these components. Other than that, please explain acronyms unique to this topic and you'll be good.

Kritik/Critical Arguments: Please contextualize your evidence, especially link evidence. Spend some time explaining how the other team contributes to the problem you're citing and how your alternative solves that.

Theory/Procedurals: Please take time to signpost and engage with the other team's points, not just your own points. Tell me what the impact of the procedural is: is it a voting issue that means the other side should lose or is it a reason to throw out an argument.

If you have any questions, please ask before the round. Otherwise, speak clearly and have fun!

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).

Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

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

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

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

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

inactive

Intro on myself:

I debated Policy my entire high school career at Lawrence High. (2009-2012)

I currently coach Speech and Debate in Missouri.

General:

Read as fast as you want, but please slow down on citations, tags, and blocks so I can keep track of them. My general rule of thumb though is that if I can’t understand you then I can’t vote for you.

Don’t speak over your opponent. It isn’t constructive to the debate nor will it be tolerated. It should also go without saying that if you’re rude in general to the opposing team that it will not be looked kindly upon.

Cutting evidence (e.g. making the font size .1 or taking out things all together) to make your argument sound better is considered cheating in my eyes. Don’t do it.

Speaks are not decided based on speed or presentation alone, but moreover your effectiveness as a debater to convince me of your arguments.

I will keep time and follow NSDA guidelines for grace periods or the lack thereof.

Arguments:

I can handle most arguments. I tend to default as a policy maker. If you choose to run a policy argument just make sure that it is explained well enough as to why I should be voting for it. Other than that I am pretty open to anything you want to run.

K’s- I am not a big fan of Kritiks. I am not saying that you shouldn’t run them, just be aware that you will need to explain it (why I should vote for it) to me very well if you want me to consider it.

Lastly, and most importantly… Have FUN!

Best of luck!

Debated @ SMW from 2016-2020 (China (2016/2017, Education 2017/2018, Immigration 2018/2019, and Arms Sales 2019/2020)

Debated @ JCCC 2nd semester of my senior year 2020 (Space)

Debated at KU (alliances fall 2020)

Coached at SMW 2020-2022

Pronouns they/them

add me to the email chain: catheydebate@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~LD DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

I may be experienced at policy but I have no idea what's going on, treat me like a parent judge please, im begging you. I don't even know round structure.

~~~~~~~~POLICY DEBATERS~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE 12-2-22: I took a step back from the debate world this school year, so this is the first tournament of the season for me, yay!! I have really no idea about the topic. If you're good at what you do, it shouldn't matter. Make sure to explain everything out, impact it, do the stuff, basically write my ballot for me. Feel free to read whatever, get out there and do your thing. Since I have been out my spreading awareness has just gotten worse, so you can, just maybe not top speed for me? Slow down, and clearly say tags & analytics. I don't care how fast your cards are as long as I can get the speech doc and what I just mentioned. I will be watching for clipping, but I trust y'all.

*New rule for zoom debate, send me analytics when spreading because I have a really hard time processing stuff when I’m listening to things on the internet, captions are honestly my best friend, when you otherwise can't send analytics slow down. Plus you never know about audio quality on my end so don't assume that my scratchy speakers can put through your spreaded analytics. You don't have to send them to everyone if you don't want to, but please send them privately to me, because then you know I flowed them for sure and can get justifiably mad at me when I say you didn't say something that's right infront of my face. It's much easier for me to focus if we were in person so don't worry about speed.

Don't say anything abusive. You'll get 0 speaks. So no racism, no homophobic/transphobic things, no ableism, no sexism, nothing. I will give your team the automatic loss, with 0 speaks, and talk to your coach. So please don't. It should be a given. On pronouns, if you misgender someone, if you just say I'm sorry and then move on and don't do it again, I won't feel inclined to drop your speaks. But if you say more, yeah I will, just apologize and move on. Doing anything else in my mind is toxic, because if you say anything other than sorry you're justifying it and that's not cool.

I've been trying to figure out what I want my paradigm to say for a while now, but honestly I think less is more at this point.

You can run anything. Except, I really don't want to vote on T. Please don't read more than 1 or 2 arguments.

Framework I will vote on, but I don't want to vote on just framework, give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for this K aff other than it scares you and you have nothing else ready.

Run all the abusive CP's you want, I love abusive counterplans, as long as they solve something.

DA's I love em, keep em coming, but make them link.

K's make sure you explain to me the nuances of your K, otherwise go at it. I know some stuff from running it but please understand I am a business major and don't have the energy to read every single philosopher to exist. UPDATE 1/2/21: I am no longer a business major, I've changed to something different, but the premises still stands

For theory stuff if you read condo I won't vote on it unless the neg is running more than 5-6 things, but it also really depends on what they are. Like a DA, a CP, 2 T's, and a K yeah no, probably won't get me to vote on condo because you can easily respond to all of it if you manage your time right. More than 1 K plus a bunch of other things will get me to. I don't want to see a round have more than 1 K ever so please don't do that, and what i mean by more than 1 K is dont read 3 5 card K's that totally contradict each other. If they pair well I don't care(like a language K + something else), but if their philosophies are totally off base from each other yeah no.

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.

Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.

Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.

Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.

Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.

LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.

Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.

Be polite and have fun!

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.

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I'm writing my dissertation right now and have done less reading on this debate topic than any other year I've been coaching. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific literature you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

I lean towards the stock issues paradigm (Topicality, Significance of Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Advantage over Disadvantage)

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.

I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.

I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.

Standard things:

I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!

Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.

Kritiks- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.

Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..

Kritikal affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…

MSU '24 (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, and Nukes)

Trinity Academy '20 (State champion and 7th at NSDA's in LD)

daviddebate20@gmail.com

TLDR: Do what you do best and I will evaluate what happens in the round as best as I can. PERSUADE ME! I love evidence debates and in-depth clash. Interact with the other team's arguments rather than rely exclusively on your pre-written blocks and your speaks will show it. If no framework is articulated I will default to offense/defense since it is the fairest and applies most consistently to all kinds of debates. Speaks will start at 28.5 and either go up or down from there.

Longer version:

Tech----X----------------Truth

Infinite Condo---X-----------------1 conditional cp

Plans-----X--------------Planless

Debate has value-X------------------Debate is bad

All Cards-----X---------------No cards

Super long framing contentions-----------------X--Several good cards

Evidence Quality--X------------------No evidence standards

All theory is a reason to reject the team-------------------X--Just Condo

I used to have a long list on different things that I have included below, but I am convinced that free speech is immensely important and as such believe ideas (even if radical or unpopular) should be expressed and tested against one another so truth can win out. If you want to read policy arguments, great! If you would rather debate critically, go for it, just know I have less experience and most of my college experience with these was in clash spots not KvK.

Even though I stand by the statement expressed above and will do my best to have an open mind, I know people need to do prefs so here are some other thoughts about my beliefs you might like to know:

Case Debate: Case debate is very important; don't forget it! I love in-depth clash on the case. Most impact turns are fine with me, but DO NOT read spark or wipeout. Impact framing plays a role in my decision.

Topicality: I lean towards competing interps and will read your evidence after the debate. Organization in T debates is really important---the better you signpost and stay organized the easier it makes my job. Standard comparison and impact calc are quintessential to strong T debate. If you go for T it needs to be most of, preferable all, the 2NR.T is NOT an RVI---please don't make this argument!

Disads: I think the link level is the most important part of a disad and where most disads are either won or lost. Give me good impact and turns case analysis about why to weigh the disad before the other team's impacts and I will have an easier time voting on them.

CP's: Open to most categories of counterplan (consult cp's are probably bad). Judge kick is a logical extension of condo and I will judge kick unless the aff wins I should not. I would prefer if counterplans have a solvency advocate/explanation. Basically, don't make me have to do tons of work to figure out what the cp does/is supposed to solve for after the debate. Conditionality is good.

Kritiks: For the most part run them. I have experience with lots of literature bases, especially settler colonialism and security, but don't assume I have read your literature as much as you have. I don't think you need an alt for me to vote on the K but would prefer if you have one. Links can be disads to the aff but I need an explanation why. NOTE: In order to go for the K without an alt you need to prove/have non-status quo links that outweigh the aff. PIKs are probably bad

K-affs: I am not opposed to these arguments. If you run a k-aff, make sure you solve/accomplish something. I have become more policy-leaning in these debates because I feel that lots of K affs seek auto-wins. Having a clear role of the ballet and an explanation of your advocacy and how it resolves your impacts will help clarify the debate and significantly help your cause.

T vs Nontraditional affs: I believe that debate is better when there is some inherent fairness and set ground conditions to facilitate the discussion. I do not implicitly think the aff outweighs topicality and I do think topicality is a valid argument. I will not be convinced by arguments that one side is not allowed to debate. Clash, testing, and procedural fairness are all persuasive to me. A set topic is valuable.

Your reward for reading to the bottom is some things to boost speaks:

- Great cross-examination

- Excellent argumentation and off the flow debating

- Being funny [joke about me = +0.3, joke about sports= +0.1]

- Being strategic

- Not just filling speech time, but accomplishing something in every speech you give

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I'm a recent OE grad that debated for 3 years in High School (1 at BVN, 2 at Olathe East) mainly in the Open and KDC divisions for policy and Congress, Extemporaneous Debate, DX, PFD, and Info in Forensics.

Policy

TL:DR: I'm just here to watch your round. Be you, be respectful, follow the rules, and demonstrate understanding of your evidence. If you want to speed up, just be clear on your tag lines and analytics.

In terms of preferences, I'm not too picky about debate rounds; you can run whatever you want, as long as you understand the nuances of your agreement. It's your round, and I'm just here to watch. However, I am a firm believer in the idea that clash is crucial in debate round, and will prefer a team that takes the time to properly address the opposition's arguments over one that doesn't.

Recently, the biggest gripe I've had with debaters is the overlooking of synthesizing arguments in favor of reading more meaningless cards. In my eyes, evidence is useless without analysis. I want you to take that evidence and elevate it into an argument; reading cards to me without inputting them into the advocacy through analysis, especially in response to an opponent's arguments, isn't going to help your case. Show me that you understand your case and support your advocacy. I would love to see line by lines and impact calc whenever pertinent. Again, clash is what I prefer in a debate round, and analysis is a key portion of that.

In terms of advocacies in general; there's no argument I won't go for with the right defense (spare any offensive or inappropriate argument). I must admit, I'm not the biggest fan of dramatic and overblown framing arguments, but again, with the right defense and in the right context, it's not something I would never vote for. I prefer truth over tech.

I don't prefer topicality and/or theory, unless the argument is truly valid in the situation. I've seen the two often be used as more of a time suck than a true argument, and I'm fine with any other off case position being used in that manner. Please only run these arguments if the opponent's advocacy truly affects your ability to participate in the round.

I won't hesitate to vote against you or dock speaker points/rank if you make a blatant violation of debate rules/etiquette. It goes without saying that you should be respectful and professional with your opponents, but some people often forget that that respect extends into discourse during the round. I expect everyone to be truthful in the round, and that includes bringing up relevant and credible evidence as well as making sure that your partner follows up if you say "my partner will cover that in their speech."

In terms of speed, I can generally handle it as long as you slow down and be clear on your tag lines.

At the end of the day, Debate is just another high school activity. Respect your peers/opponents, act professionally (that includes being aware of when your audio/video are on), and have fun.

If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

PFD

I've got plenty of experience with PFD, so I consider myself tabula rasa. Run what you want, speak how you want, and I'll adjust. I will say though, I feel like PFD is the best place to improve and display an individual's speaking skills, regardless of what cards you've got in front of you. I prioritize clash and prefer that you use cards solely as an accompaniment to your speech. This is not Policy, and I don't want to hear what your author has to say. I want to hear what you have to say and how your cards support what you claim. If you're going to be on an email chain, please include me. My email is aadityapore@gmail.com. Thank you.

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

Hey yall!

⭐ I'm a former college policy debater (2 years) & 4 years in High School. Mill Valley HS Ast. Coach for 4 years.

⭐ You can throw anything at me argument-wise. Speed is fine as long as you are still articulate (a big influence in speaker points is clarity).

⭐ speech drop> email chain. email: hprins@usd232.org

⭐ I read evidence throughout the round, so know that I am paying attention to important warrants, and will only vote on something if there is evidence backing it and it's extended properly throughout the debate.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

About me/ Preference things-

I debated at Lawrence High School for 4 years and debated in college at the University of Kansas. I have been an assistant debate coach for Shawnee Mission South High School for 4 years.

** Please add me to the email chain rose.haylee2000@gmail.com

LD

I evaluate LD traditionally with emphasis on the V and VC level. However, it is important that you are winning some offense both on the V and VC as well as the contention level debate. Winning top level offense on the V and VC and and describing how that effects the contention level debate is the easiest way to win my ballot.

TL:DR

As for how I evaluate debates, I cannot say that I have a bunch of things that I am for or against so I will just go down the list.

Make arguments to the best of your ability but please just be a good human. As far as how many rounds I have judged I did not judge or teach at a camp this summer so I am a little behind.

T- I debated and went for T quite often in debates but I won't vote for it unless its 5 min in the 2NR and you gotta have a case list and reason why your interpretation is good, what does the aff's model of debate mean for the debate community?

Theory- its fine, be persuasive and tell me why the aff/negs justification for reading a particular argument/set of arguments is bad. I can/will vote for abuse on condo or other theory but getting there may be hard, I think condo is good and it needs to be excessive abuse. Continuing on theory, you as the person reading theory need to be able to prove why their interp is bad and why that hurts you in the round, not just the debate community writ large.

DA's- I enjoy them a lot, you will need to explain each individual part of the DA debate and its implications for the argument overall I won't extend cards when you say "extend my link".

CP's- I like Cp's that are competitive. I also am a firm believer that the CP must have a NB that is not we solve better than the aff. Not a huge fan of "cheating" counterplans but you gotta do what you gotta do to win.

K's- I read and went for the cap k, I am not a K hack or know all of the things that you are talking about. I really enjoy k debates but I will need you to explain things to me and why they matter/ what you win because of each individual part of the K debate. I like techy K debates.

READ ME:

I really enjoy this activity but there are some things about it that I am not too fond of,

1. Charging the Mound, it makes me uncomfortable and probably also makes your opponents uncomfortable as well. If you have questions or do not understand my decision please ask or email me but you are not going to convince me I made the wrong decision, and if you do why does that matter my ballot is already submitted. Let's have a productive conversation about debate

2. Personal attacks at your opponent, there is a line between being sassy and making others feel bad about themselves.

3. Sexist, Ablest, Transphobic, Racist (and other isms) language and behaviors, please be good human.

4. Stealing prep, it's just a pet peeve of mine

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging paradigm before the round starts, and email me if you have any remaining questions after the debate is over. I will always be more than happy to help you all get better at this activity!

Lauren Carter, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School

lncarter@olatheschools.org

I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater and one year in public forum debate) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but I have been coaching and judging since 2017.

General debate preferences:

Please be polite to each other! Being rude is not a good look if you want good speaker points.

I do my best to flow all arguments made in the round. That being said, if your argument isn't clear and/or I don't know where to flow it because you're jumping between points and aren't clearly sign-posting, it may not make it on my flow. Please stick to your roadmap as much as possible if you give one.

I'm not a huge fan of scripted/pre-typed speeches, aside from the first speech of the round. Going off-script shows me that you have a good handle of your arguments and will reflect well on the ballot. Being a good reader and a good debater are not one and the same.

I'm not comfortable giving oral critiques or round disclosure after the debate. I will put comments on my ballot.

Policy: I'm okay with some speed (not your top speed) but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments/cards.

I learned a more traditional, stock issue oriented style of policy when I debated, so that is what I have the most experience with. However, you are the debaters and know which arguments work best for you. If you can teach me something new while in your round, go for it!

I especially love to hear good disads, but I also think that CPs and T are effective when argued well.

I don't mind kritiks and theory, but I don't have the background to follow them well without very clear explanations. Please don't throw around technical terms and arguments and assume that I know what you are talking about.

While you should respond to all arguments, I do believe that quality over quantity often comes into play when it comes to reading a bunch of evidence. A card isn't an argument, so please don't give me a laundry list of cards and taglines without taking some time to justify their purpose in the round.

I generally don't spend a lot of time looking at your speech docs. If I open your doc, I'll mostly look at it as a quick reference to help me keep track of my flow. If I have to continuously look at your doc to follow you, you aren't being clear or sign-posting enough. If a card is called into question I will look at it, but I don't take evidence credibility or inconsistencies with cards into consideration unless you as the debaters bring it up.

LD: I prefer a more traditional style of debate for LD and like to see rounds that bring out the distinct style of debate that represents LD. I would prefer to see debates centered on your case values, philosophy and logic.

Public Forum: I've judged PFD at local tournaments and prelim rounds at nationals.

You don't have to speak super slow for me but I don't enjoy hearing spreading during PF rounds. In this style of debate, I appreciate debaters who use their time well and know when to develop and expand on arguments and when to narrow the focus. You have longer speeches at the beginning so use this time wisely early on, especially for you second speakers.

For PA and Limited Prep: Clear Structure, projection, and is the speaker's voice their own.

For Interp: Character Development is number 1 for me. Next is does the interper follow dramatic structure. In humor # 1 thing is: does it make me laugh? Second, does the story make sense?

For Debate: Emphasize impacts. Delivery before speed. If arguments are clear and logical, then speed works for me, but speed isn't an end in itself; it's purpose is to get more arguments in, i.e. if you aren't giving more arguments for the opponent to refute, then why talk incredibly fast? Also your arguments need to be grounded in reality because I am well versed in logical fallacies.

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!

I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.

I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game; it just needs to be argued well. Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying.

I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.

Employment: 7 years as an attorney and 7 years as an assistant debate and forensics judge.

Experience: 2 years high school debate, 1 semester college debate at KU, over 10 years of judging including judging policy at EKNSDA and KCKNCFL and judging PFD at NSDA and NCFL, including PFD finals at NCFL 2019.

Arg Prefs:

Topicality is rarely an acceptable argument, unless in extreme cases. When it is run, it should be at the top of the flow and is an a priori issue for me.

Generic disads are always acceptable. Just don't expect them to be super important to my flow if the impacts are outrageous or the link story is weak. Regardless, if they are on the flow, aff must respond.

Topical counterplans are almost never acceptable to me, but if you can make an argument why it would be necessary in this round, tell me.

Open to any K, just make sure you know the material. Misrepresentations of the philosophy presented in the cards, or cards that don't actually make or support the argument made by the neg team will be discounted.

Big impacts are disfavored but not terminal to an arg. They simply don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Give me voters! Tell me why to vote on any argument, weigh it against other arguments in the round, and do the work for me. Leave as little as possible up to my discretion/analysis so that you remain in as much control of the round as possible.

While I will not do a team's work for them on arguments, if a team misrepresents what a card actually says, the persuasive power of that argument is heavily discounted. The other team still needs to challenge the argument, but the misrepresented argument will not weigh heavily in the round.

Style Prefs:

Speed is fine, provided there is competent analysis and your enunciation is clear. Speed does not work for me if your enunciation/volume is poor, or if you are just burning through cards without considering what the cards are actually saying/doing any analysis.

On-case in the two is fine with me, though I would like a preview of it in the 1N.

Give me more detailed roadmaps than "everything on the flow."

(LD Paradigm below Policy paradigm)

I'm a pretty traditional judge.

I am willing to be persuaded based upon quality of argument/evidence. I do not give wins to quantity of evidence over quality of evidence.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---save for 2 caveats

1-I don't like fiat carried to Harry Potter/"magical" levels. There has to be some solid grounding in reality for me. Taken too far it gets into "how many angels can dance in the head of a pin?" territory. Most of the topics deal with serious issues that have serious real-world ramifications and they deserve being treated with due seriousness.

2-Having personally spent years arguing that literally nearly everything leads to nuclear war/global death/genocide/extinction etc. etc. , I will not flow said augments. I will NOT-I Repeat WILL NOT punish anyone for making them, as I said, I have done so myself. I simply will not flow such arguments.

Again, quality of argument matters more to me than quantity.

I'm ok with whatever speed debaters want to use. But if you really can out-speed my flow---well, if I can't flow it, then it makes it hard for you to win.

I am not a "blank slate" judge, I will not pretend that I don't know things.

I prefer clash on substantive points. I prefer dealing directly with the topic at hand. I often find highly technical "small ball" debates about debate itself to be unpersuasive.

I also greatly dislike it when debaters miss frame, take out of context or otherwise distort/spin/ etc. their evidence.

Any other question debaters might have, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am "Old School" when it comes to LD Debate.

Pretty straightforward when it comes to LD--and other styles of debate

The only thing of note would be a deep disappointment with people that attempt to make LD into something like Policy Debates "little brother" or Policy Debates "mini-me."

LD is its own style of debate--it has it own rules, structure, methodology, delivery etc. etc

It is no more appropriate to try and crush Policy Debate methods/arguments/terms/delivery into an LD round than it would be to try and pass off ones Poetry selection as an Extemp speech. You CAN force round pegs into square holes---if you pound hard enough----but it tends to mangle things pretty thoroughly, an unappealing result.

Spreading and cranking up the speed (in general) despite being currently in-fashion, in places, is not really appropriate in LD where Delivery counts. Nor consistent with its historical context and purpose.

Plus if everything is essentially/effectively Policy Debate then there is really no reason at all for any other formats/styles etc. of debate.

Different events require different approaches, methodologies, styles and delivery. Inability or refusal to adapt ones case and methodology to fit the event or the paradigm IMO leads to poor quality debate.

I am not a "blank slate" Judge and as such I will not pretend that I don't know things. Attempts to get things "past" ones opponent that are not factually or logically correct will be noted.

Sincerely sorry if that sounds harsh but being able to adapt ones case/methods to fit the event and judging paradigms is a crucial skill for any competitor--esp. a debater.

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.

Experience: I debated for four years and have coached for three years at Olathe South.

I view myself as a policy-maker, whoever leaves the world a better place is who I will vote for.

Topicality: I'm a big fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a big part of the round. I believe the resolution was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters and if cases fall outside of that I don't think the event is educational.

Counterplans: I'm fine with counterplans. I think they are an interesting way to test whether or not the aff is the best way to solve the issues they present.

K's: I'm fine with listening to K's as long as you actually understand what you are running. If you don't understand it, then I won't understand it. If I don't understand it, I don't vote for you.

Last of all, don't be rude. This event is about learning and discussing ways to change the world. Being mean has no place in that.

I'm an attorney licensed in California, Kansas, and Missouri. I've been practicing since 2002. I graduated from the University of Virginia (BA, Government, 1997) and the University of Virginia School of Law (JD, 2002). I moved to Kansas in 2005 and have been practicing litigation here ever since.

I am relatively new to high school debate, but I am not new to active listening and parsing arguments. My approach to judging is to look for competitors who follow the following five rules:

1. Be respectful

2. Be thorough

3. Be organized

4. Be clear 

5. Be persuasive.

I am fine with technical arguments, but don't use abbreviations or jargon with me (see rule #4). Good luck!