I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

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.

I’ve competed in high school/college, and judged in the years since. Policy maker.

As a policy debate judge, my highest priority is stock issues. They are vital for the affirmative. If any one of Harms, Inherency, A Topical Plan, or Solvency are not there, then I will not vote for the affirmative. I want to be clear that I consider each stock issue to rely on the one before it. I consider advantages to stem from solvency as well. Please arrange your case accordingly.

Regarding Topicality, I prefer to see debates focus that focus more on interpretation and standards than on voters. I always consider topicality to be a voting issue.

I do welcome squirrel cases, but I like to see an affirmative topicality justification in the 1AC.

Please keep speed within reason. If you are reading cards faster than I can get them on the flow, then I will miss them and disregard them. I would much rather see a team speak clearly than quickly.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Tabula rasa. Tell me how I should vote in the round. If not I’ll defer to stock issues. Also, link off-case arguments.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

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.

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

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

I straddle between the policymaker and stock issue paradigms. I am somewhat sympathetic to tabula rasa, but I usually go either policymaker or stock issues.

I dislike spreading speed. Otherwise, I am open to following and flowing your round as you deliver it. If you can persuade me that your particular strategy is advantageous for implementing or defending your policy position, you have liberty to use it. I prefer straightforward debate rather than hairsplitting the rules; topicality fights are the main reason I am not a pureplay stock issues judge; but I have had very occasional rounds where topicality indeed decided the ballot. I strongly dislike generic DAs. I am lukewarm about Ks and counterplans, but I have occasionally voted for teams employing them. Whatever your strategy, persuade me that it makes sense, with logic and documentation.

I debated three years in high school, and I have judged approximately 20 topic-years since high school. I have judged at three NCFL national tournaments, one day each during the first-day prelim rounds.

I'm a head debate and forensics coach.

Debate: Steps for judging.

1. I look at stock issues first on the affirmative side, HIPS Case (Harms, Inherency, Plan text, Solvency)
2. Then look to prove your plan is Topical if the Negative brings a logical Topicality issue to the board.
3. I look to see if the Aff Case has more benefits(ADvantages) than DisAdvantages.
4. Most of my Reasons For Decisions (RFD) are based on the aff proving the problem is there, they can solve it without harm coming from the plan. Statistics will help here.
5. If the Negative disproves a stock issue, the topicality of the plan is unclear, or proves a disadvantage of the plan happening, the Negative wins.

Forensics:

Speech:

1. Organized logical thoughts and structured speeches.
2. Wants to communicate to their audience (Before, during, and after the performance)
3. Presents, Proves and Explains a Thesis (Opinion about life)

Acting / Interpretation:

1. Presents a teaser that develops an exposition
2. Transitions to an introduction that presents a theme (life lesson)
3. Gives strong supported emotional reactions to the text and situation through blocking, voice, expression, and transitions.
4. The text is presented as a mini-plot line with rising action (beginning), climax (middle), and resolution (end).

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I prefer actual communication and good speaking skills over rapid delivery. While I'm not an expert in K debate, I do understand the use of evidence, analysis, and snark. I would suggest that you only use the first two. While you may tell me how I "must vote," this technique annoys me and detracts from your argument. Just be a great communicator.

Competitive Experience:

                 2004-2005 Hutchinson Community College = AFA-NIET / JV NPDA/ Novice NFA-LD

                 2005-2006 University of Kansas = JV NDT/CEDA (Partners; Chris Thomas).

                 2006-2009 Sterling College = AFA-NIET/ NPTE-NPDA/ NFA-LD

Coaching Experience:

                 2009-2011 Sterling College = NPTE/ AFA-NIET

                 2011-Present Barton Community College = NPDA/ NFA-LD / NFA-IE

Summation: My experience in collegiate policy debate is limited to NFA-LD and sparce rounds of policy in NPTE style. In light of my resume, your first question is probably, "Dear Heavenly father... Does he know what is going down?" My answer, which probably isn't God's is "Yes." Your speed is not going to phase me, I'll manage. Your argumentation is not going to phase me, I'm a Parli debater... we tend to make things up without any warranted information at all. Holistically my approach to a debate round is simple; Be courteous, be thorough, be organized and be persuasive. Whether you do that speaking at 500wpm or 75 is irrelevant. Whether you argue De-DEV or dump solvency-turns all day, doesn't matter; do the above and we'll at least be on the same page. Nothing kills me more than to see four people with egos trying to convince me they deserve active listening...

Specifics:

1. Procedural Argumentation:

          I will never vote on a procedural argument unless abuse is proven in the round. End of story. Do not expect me to buy your T/Spec argument if you're going for on-case and the procedural in the 2NR. Suck it up and make a decision post the 1NR. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN MY BALLOT. It means you're confident in your final minute strat, which I respect. Second, I expect to hear abuse argumentation cross-applied to the various standards you expect to pick up in the 2NR. I do not want to hear "We proved abuse, they no linked on the double bind, vote Neg." I will quit flowing. Why? Because you're not even trying to express the internal connection between the standard debate and the end-line voter, you're tagging in hopes I make the argument for you on the flow, which I can't do.  

2. Counter-Plan:

        1) Framework/Theory: I'm all game for debate about debate. Personally I believe it's what influences competitive progress in this activity. This in mind, I believe PICs are 100% valid and I'll easily vote for one without thinking twice, unless you prove to me that you've been uniquely abused as a result of the PIC. Bear in mind that I also require PIC specific solvency that includes the PIC ground and figure in the evidence. (EX: Text = US should do Y... PIC = EU should do Y: Solvency for the PIC = EU can do Y not "Y is awesome" (Card one) alongside "EU is awesome." It seems trivial but I think we've all been surprised at the warrants inside solvency cards at some point. If it isn't clear by now, I expect a justification for the CP in the FW.

        2) CONDO/DIS/UNCON - For some reason this always seems to be an issue in judging paradigms. I don't believe conditional status is ever bad, I believe it's a unique opportunity to test the text. Should you go Dispo, I only ask that you justify and outline your framework in a way that the AFF is crystal clear as to their objective in handling the CP. UNCON, well... now we know where the 2NR time allocation is going to be.

        3) PERM: Should have text and solvency... right? I'll read those cards, promise.

3. K

       1. Framework is paramount. I need to understand holistically why your interpretation of the link ground justifies your use of the Kritik. Honestly, I lean AFF in a theory debate pertaining to critical frames. I want to say sorry... but I won't.

        2. ALT/ALT (S): If your perspective of capitalism is "do nothing" then expect me to embrace that analysis like a warm blanket on the tundra. I will do absolutely nothing like...flow. The only exception to this rule is if you have some unholy awesome analysis as to why rejecting a human beings' hard attempt to solve a problem is the utopian solution to all life's inadequacies (Nihilism). In that case I expect to hear the AFF prove to me why life is so darn important. In the end I will expect solvency to the Alternative and Permuatation.

        3. K-Culture: Please keep in mind... I am a middle-class, Christian, Hetero-Sexual, anglo-saxon male. I'm probably not enthused about being told that my very existence is the pinnacle of hate and intolerance. I will definitely listen to your argument... but I'd really enjoy an alternative that doesn't ultimately argue that I should hide in a corner and write apology letters all day. Your alternative should be inclusive to all cultures and ideologies seeking to mediate between frames. Golden rule.

4. Narrative/Performance AFF/NEG:

      1. Why not? My only request is that you distinguish between your in round obligations and the opposing team. Reading a poem and saying "let's talk" isn't a debate. There are some things that you don't have to try once to know they're probably not effective. Point blank, I'll listen but what I'm looking for is clash with results. I want to know that at the end of the round your performative will influence real world results. How you convince me of that is entirely up to you. (See #3 Above).

5. General Goodness:

          I really like impact/risk calculus in the 2NR and 2AR. It makes my life a whole lot easier. My rule for juding is as follows: If you didn't pull it across, analyze it, weigh it and tell me how to evaluate it overall in the final speech... I probably don't care. This will be my line when you start agressively arguing with me... "I don't care." Please don't let it come to that level of ignorance. I will respect you if you want to talk about why I made my decision the way I did. I will even take your advice on how to judge subsequent rounds... if you justify your position. I will NOT sit there while you yell at me, I will not entertain your poor attitude and above all else I will not attempt to persuade you that I'm right and your wrong. Your intellect will take you to great peaks, but your character will keep you atop them.

Good Luck.

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.

Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.

Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.