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

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

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

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

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

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

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

feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.

Email: benlengle@gmail.com

For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.

In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.

Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.

TLDR

Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.

Theory

Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.

Case

Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.

T

Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.

Ks vs Policy Affs

Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.

Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.

T vs Non-traditional Affs

"The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom" -a fortune cookie

I tend to believe that fairness is not a terminal impact. I have a hard time quantifying it in relation to affirmative turns and disads to framework. You would need some concrete, aggregate data that showed people quitting or however you explain why it matters and exclude any variables that don't deal with critical affirmatives. Clash and iterative education are much easier to win in front of me.

If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.

I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.

While my track record in college is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.

Method vs Method

The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.

Here are some miscellaneous tips:

I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.

I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.

Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.

If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.

LD Paradigm

Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").

Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

Policy Debate Wichita East 1993-1997

Policy Debate Wichita State 1997-2000

Head Coach Wichita Heights 2002-2005

Head Coach Andover High School 2005-Present

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

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

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

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

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

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 PF & Policy, 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 in open/varsity divisions.
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 go)

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 link & 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 an increasing number of 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 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, and 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 likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

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. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

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 as 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 even 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 & Paraphrasing. 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 (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), 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/PMC: 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/LOC: 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/MGC: 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: Just 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.

Name: Tony Nation

School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach

Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.

Email: antonynation@gmail.com – add me to the chain

If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.

Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.

I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.

As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.

Notes about specific arguments:

All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.

I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.

Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?

This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.

My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.

Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.

LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.

Email Chain: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

Please include relevant information (tournament name, round, team codes, ect.) in the subject line and speech doc names.

I debated at Wichita East (2015-2019). I then coached + regularly judged (2019-2022). Since then, I have not coached and only judge once or twice a year. I likely know absolutely nothing about the topic or newer debate trends/norms.

When I debated, I was a stereotypical policy 2N – I usually went for a counterplan + disad, never read kritiks, and always went for T-USFG vs K affs. I have very little experience reading kritiks but plenty answering them.

Thus, I am most comfortable and competent judging policy vs policy rounds. I am okay for policy vs K rounds. I will be a very bad judge for K vs K rounds. I do not have an ideological opposition to kritiks but due to my lack of experience going for them you should err on the side of over explanation.

That being said, please debate using whatever speed and arguments you are most comfortable with, and I will do my best to adapt to you. If you provide clear and warranted analysis, explanation, impact comparison, and judge instruction you are likely to win my ballot regardless of your argument style.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.