I've coached for three years.
I like well thought-out closing arguments.
Speak clearly and not too quickly, so I can understand you.

I'm looking out for good and well-mannered speakers.
I don't have a preference on arguments you use as long as you make sure to explain and interpret them well.

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

As a judge I focus on communicative skills more than the resolution issues.

Skill emphasis is what I judge the most on.

As far as your speed, as long as you can be understood and are fluent speed isn't an issue.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable.

Topicality is rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I prefer specific real world arguments.

Overall, I am mostly a tabula rasa type judge. I want each team to tell me what the best paradigm is, why and how I should adopt it, and why they best satisfy victory under the conditions of that paradigm. I'll vote how you tell me to. If both teams tell me how to vote, give me a reason to prefer your framework over theirs

If you don't give me a paradigm, I will revert to a hybrid of stock issue and policymaker judge. This means that I expect the stock issues to be covered in some way (even if you give me a different paradigm, the stock issues form a common language and rubric for debate that I think needs to be followed for the most part), and I expect discussion centered around fundamental elements of policymaking, such as cost, feasability, workability, political considerations, ethical considerations, etc. as well as the net benefit analysis. The NBA is key for me. Whoever wins the NBA wins the debate for me 9/10 times

On the off-case flow, I am 100% a judge that will vote on Topicality. But if you go for T, really go for T. That doesn't mean kick everything but T, but rather, make a real argument. In my mind, the standards are absolutely the most significant element of the T debate. And make the voters have some impact. If you read fairness and education, best tell me why your interp links to fairness and education and why it has impact on the round. All that goes for Aff, too. The right to define doesn't mean your interp is automatically better. Give me a reason to prefer

I love disads. I am fine with generic disads. I am fine with unique disads. I am good with linear DAs. Ptix is okay. I love them all!

I love counterplans. I am fine with generic counterplans. I am fine with unique counterplans. I don't get too hung up on the deep CP theory, though. And make sure to give me a plan text and preferably, a competing advantage...

I am somewhat receptive to Kritiks. That being said, I detest the "every year" kritiks that kids dust off season after season. If you're reading K, try to make it a unique K that applies specifically to this season's resolution, or work very hard to adapt your generic K to this year's resolution. I'll listen to discourse Kritiks, but there better be real impact, and I would expect something more than "role of the ballot" for the alt. Me giving you opponent a loss doesn't change debate. It doesn't educate. It may actually make the problems worse...

As for speed and performance, I do believe debate is a communicaton activity first. I can evaluate speed but am unimpressed by it. I value quality over quantity and 100% think that the warrant debate trumps the evidence debate. A handful of cogent, relative, strong arguments will win the debate over the spread 9/10 times

I expect everyone involved to be good sports. I don't care much about how you dress or how you speak or if you don't debate the "right" way, but I care A LOT about how you treat one another...

I am good with paperless debate and speech docs, but don't use that as an excuse to quit listening to each other, or to try to spread. Also, paperless debate isn't an excuse to add 10 minutes of extra prep time to your rounds.

I have many years of experience as a competitor, an assistant, and a head coach so I have seen a bit of everything

That's about all I have. Ask me any additional you may have, prior to the round, and best of luck!

For policy debate:

I am a stock issues judge with a focus on solvency. I will listen to topicality, justification, and prima facie arguments. I like to see a good analysis of case arguments in rounds.

I will take DAs into consideration for my decision. The more specific the link, the better, but generic DAs are acceptable if links are clearly analyzed.

I do not like CPs; they have to be run with strict adherence to the CP rules, and they are a last resort for negative teams.

I will never listen to Kritiks.

Even though I debated all four years of high school, I would like teams communicate their points without relying solely on debate jargon. Speed is discouraged, but tolerated if teams articulate clearly.

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

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

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

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

Any speed is fine.

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

I debated four years in Kansas in the early '80s. State medalist. No college debate experience. I did compete in college forensics.

I default to Policymaker with a strong emphasis on the resolution of key arguments. A speaker's ability to organize thoughts, address all arguments, provide clear analysis, and advocate for the ballot are important. T is fine if developed well. Disadvantages need to link. Counterplans are acceptable- but stick to issues rather than theory. No Speed. No K.

I have coached at the 4A level in Kansas for over three decades. I have coached 15 state championship teams and many other state medalists in 2 and 4 speaker formats. I have qualified policy teams for national tournament policy debate and had teams reach elims several times.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

Common Questions About My Judging Criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

At its core, debate is a communications event. What I look for in a round is the ability of all speakers to 1) identify the key issues in the round, 2) develop them throughout the round rationally and understanding/ respecting the nuance and real-world implications, and 3) expressing those issues appropriately and effectively.

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

There must be a balance here. Good public speaking skills are a must—good public speaking form is critical to success. At the end of the round, though, if the team that is least polished offers the most substantive arguments on the round’s issues, that team will win the round. This is true even when their opponents have a better understanding of theory, structure of arguments, and the like.

II. Which best describes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

B. Stock issues emphasis

Road maps will be on-time, please, unless there is a specific rule requiring they be off-time. Off-time road maps will be limited to sequence--I do not flow them and will not consider an argument offered here. Word economy, please--if you will follow the prior speaker's order, simply say "Same order."

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

E. No preferences regarding speed

I can flow what you can enunciate. If you stop enunciating, I stop flowing. I do not yell "Clear" or give other signals that you are not enunciating.

IV. Counterplans are:

C. Acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Counterplans, if run, should be plan exclusive. I’m looking for functional competitiveness in a cp. When neg offers a cp, they necessarily indict the status quo and therefore forfeit presumption, IMO. I don’t accept that cps can be conditional, as this presents a “moving target” to aff. (“Ban the plan” is not functionally competitive, and only weakly textually competitive, BTW.)

V. Topicality is:

B. Fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

What can I say? I’m a stock issues judge. T is a priori, so if neg is going to run it they really ought to run it at the top of 1NC. The end-of-round test for T, to me, is reasonability: if the plan is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, I’m going to allow it. I’m not all that interested in how neg structures a T arg, or how aff responds to it—has aff convinced me that their interpretation of the resolution is reasonable? If so, they’re topical and I consider the rest of the round.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

The links make the DA relevant to the plan. If the plan doesn’t incur the DA there’s not much point, now, is there?

VII. I find kritiks:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Other things I like and you will do if you want my ballot:

· Direct Clash: I really like on-case args, BTW. I like DAs and Solvency attacks a lot, too, but clash is key to a good round.

· Signposting: When clashing with your opponents, tell me which arg you’re answering. (Road mapping is not a substitute for signposting, BTW.) I know where I would put your arg on my flow, but I need to know where YOU want me to put it.

· Extension in rebuttals: There’s more to a good rebuttal than repeating what was said in constructives. When you repeat constructives, you’re having a “is not/is so” argument. This is neither clash nor a debate. Extending args involves further developing your position and supporting it with extension evidence. Read new evidence that supports your position.

· Closed cross-examination: I strongly dislike open cross-ex. Also, please ask for cards from the speaker during cross-ex, not between speeches. On the topic of cards, please do not hover near the speaker and take cards as they read them.

I debated policy and did forensics for 4 years at Lawrence Freestate High School in Lawrence, Kansas, reaching the Nationals my senior year. I am no longer involved in the activity except for judging a few tournaments.

KU B.S. Economics, Minor in Math. Cornell Masters in Economics. I'm working on my PhD in Economics and Public Policy at Cornell. I study issues of criminal justice, recidivism, and the market for prisons. This informs how I view the current topic.

I will drop you (or at least your speaks) if you use abusive/racist/sexist/ablest/homophobic/transphobia/etc. language. Being kind doesn't cost you anything. Don't minimize the oppression of others for a cheap ballot.

Debate and Forensics: Please use trigger warnings and treat traumatic situations/topics with respect. Painful experiences and topics do not exist in the vacuum of debate and forensics. They affect you, your judges, and your teammates.

Policy Debate:

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: kansasgrace@gmail.com

• Speed: Speed is fine as long as you speak clearly. I haven't debated in almost ten years, so just note that my threshold for speed may be a little lower than yours. Slow down on taglines and card names. I will say "clear" or "slow" if you are going too fast, but if it does not improve, I will not be able to flow. Slow down on anything that you find to be really important because if I don’t flow it then I won’t know it.

• Arguments: I'll evaluate whatever type of arguments you want to make, but you need to do the work. I don't mind K debate, but your alt should not be something like “reject the Aff.” In any situation, make sure you tell me why you win the round. Contextualization is key.

• Theory: Theory is fine if there’s abuse in the round, but your theory arguments shouldn’t be frivolous or a way to exclude others from the debate space. (Don’t run it as an easy way to win against an opponent who you don’t think understands it. I'm highly sensitive to the politics of income inequality in speech and debate and am not impressed with your canned theory shells.) RVIs are fine with me - it’s your round, not mine. I’ll vote on RVIs if you tell me to. With “I-Meets” I expect at least a little bit of an explanation. If your opponent made the effort to make the argument in the first place, you should do at least a little work to explain why you meet – don’t be lazy.

• Speaker Points: Generally, I will award points based on how clearly you articulate your thoughts. However, I will deduct speaks for inappropriate or overly aggressive behavior. I have no problem awarding a low-point win or at least docking your speaks if you are too rude or obnoxious in round. IF YOU BRING MICRO-AGGRESSIONS INTO THE ROUND, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT WITH SPEAKS.

• Extensions: These need to be real extensions if you want me to flow them. You can’t just go around shouting “EXTEND” to everything on the flow – what am I extending and why? Don’t be lazy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me in round.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

Former HS debater.

No college debate experience.

Have judged 1 virtual tournament on current topic.

Topicality arguments seldom win me over, unless they are blatant violations.

Disadvantages are fine, but please provide a very clear link.

Counterplans are fine, but please don't "throw something on the wall to see if it sticks."

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

I have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

As a judge, I am first looking for "Can I hear you?" and "Can I understand you?" That is something that is super important to me as a judge because you could have the best argument, but if no one can hear or understand you then what was it all for?

After diction and annunciation, I like to focus on how does the debate flow? Does it make sense? Do you look like you know what you are talking about? Always make sure you know what your topic is through and through so you don't look caught off guard.

I like to be as chill as possible, while also helping you grow. Anyone who has the guts to get up in front of people to talk about a multitude of subjects and speeches has an awesome gift and I am so excited to see you in the room.

As always, have fun!