Tabroom.com

Lansing Debate Invitational

2021 — Lansing, KS/US

Novice Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alexis Corral Sumner Academy None

Brett Cranor Blue Valley Southwest High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:54 AM CDT

Brett Cranor

bvsw '23

ku '27

I know nothing about debate trends/popular arguments for any high school topic.

email chain (please include both)- cranor.brett@gmail.com + bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

If you have any questions/problems with anything said below, feel free to ask.

General Thoughts-

1--Read whatever. I'm open to functionally everything. Ideological opposition to arguments doesn't decide who wins the debate. The bar only gets crossed if it harms other debaters or is a procedural violation of debate (clipping, miscutting evidence, etc).

2--I only evaluate what you say. tech> truth, but debate is a speaking activity, not a research document submission. I make decisions solely from the words on my flow; I'm not going to reread all your cards to find warrants for you. If you want me to read things after the debate/it is important to the round, I will obviously read them. Debate takes a lot of commitment, dedication, and perseverance so I will do my best to reciprocate such commitment by adjudicating the debate to the best of my ability.

3--I don't have a set scale for speaker points. They're pretty arbitrary but revolve around precision, smart decision-making, and how well I feel like you've actually debated (i.e not having a block battle). I will not give you a 30 if you ask for one. Even if you win you should get a 30 in the round, that does not reflect your speaking ability. This is non-negotiable; I do not care, speaks are getting beyond inflated. Speaker points are based on speaking so there's no out-of-round practice (like open source, etc) that is going to give you boosts, but that doesn't mean there aren't extra ways to increase them.

For example:

-not having a computer/blocks in finals rebuttals

-making funny & applicable jokes

-technical, efficient, and easy-to-following debating (i.e numbering, clear lbl)

4--Cross-Ex: It should always be open unless agreed upon by the debaters. If your offense is predicated on someone not knowing the answer to a question, while their partner knows it, you deserve to lose. This doesn't change if you are mav. However, I still do believe the person getting cross-examined should be answering the majority of questions asked. Having one person answer all the questions is nearly always perceptually horrible. Cross-Ex is binding and I will flow any questions and responses for the duration of three minutes. Debaters are free to ask any questions to the other team during their own prep time, but I won't flow anything said/responded to.

5--Go for the arguments you are comfortable going for. Your ability to debate the arguments you're comfortable with outweighs the consequences of badly explaining arguments because a judge prefers them. That being said, if a said argument is more confusing and/or technical, just explain it more in-depth.

6--My bar for an extension seems to be fairly high. I understand that speeches are constrained by time limits, but I'm a pretty big stickler about only accepting arguments in previous speeches. This does not just mean I throw them out the window, but rather the bar for disproving them lowers. I'm all for spin, but there is only so much you can get out of a sentence. The place where I most commonly see this is 2ac and 1ar case extensions. I enjoy seeing debaters extend advantages and internal links while doing line-by-line, as opposed to overviews, but a clear and coherent internal link chain should be present in every speech. With that being said, new 1ar arguments are up to the debaters and the only time I will personally intervene to strike things off my flow is while protecting the 2nr, against a new 2ar.

7--Dropped arguments are true, but I think debaters tend to have tunnel vision when it comes to this. There is a large chance that something else on the flow can implicate said argument, which makes banking on them solely less offensive than many believe.

8--I will not vote on anything outside of the round; no exceptions. If it's important enough, tab should be deciding this, not me.

Novice Specific-

Be nice. Everyone is here to learn (or just pass the class tbh) so unnecessary, degrading, or rude remarks are automatically going to make me not want to listen to you. I enjoy watching and evaluating debates but am completely uninterested in watching people degrade others for mistakes/not knowing what to do.

Owen Crouch Olathe East High School

August Fritton Shawnee Mission South High School

Kate Hileman De Soto High School

Last changed on Sat November 12, 2022 at 1:15 AM CDT

I have been debating for four years

The K

I will listen to and evaluate the k (including performance affs). Accessibility is a very important part of any kritik, as such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. A team that is obviously knowledgeable about the kritik they are running and does a good job at framing the round and providing alt solvency can certainly win. However, I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Don't be a moving target, try not to perf con or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). I don't love K v. K debates (framework makes the game work) but do what you must.

CPs and DAs

Please be competitive. I like PICs bad arguments and I will often vote on them unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is, I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing). DAs should be unique, generics are good but ev quality is important.

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11-minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that.

Speed

I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit, it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments

Easton Logback Olathe East High School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM CDT

any pronouns except it/its

Debated four years at Olathe East High School (2019-2023)

Currently debating at University of Kansas (2023-present)

Currently coaching at Olathe East High School (2023-present)

Updated: October 2023

Add easton.logback@gmail.com to the email chain.

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm or about debate stuff more generally, I’ll usually answer any emails with debate-related subject lines.

---Top Level---

“Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me”---Joshua Harrington

To answer the two questions I always asked when reading a paradigm:

---Is this judge willing to evaluate my argument?

Yes. I consider myself on the extreme end of tech over truth. I will not listen to arguments actively harmful to anyone in the room ('discrimination good', 'death good because life is bad'). Other than that, however, I will vote on any argument you win (including arguments that are blatantly untrue, dubiously ethical impact turns, frivolous theory, call outs, or 'death good because wipeout').

---Is this judge capable of evaluating my argument?

Probably. I have experience debating every type of style and argument. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I am confident in my ability to evaluate claims that have warrants & impacts and construct a coherent decision out of them. This confidence decreases if you are too fast for me to flow (this is usually an issue of pen time, not clarity) or if you are making claims that do not have warrants & impacts. As long as you convey what your arguments are ('there’s a reformism link', 'status quo goes nuclear', and so on), why I should believe them ('they uphold the legitimacy of the system by recognizing its flaws then addressing them with tweaks', 'new tech creates use-it-or-lose-it pressure and miscalculation', and so on), what they mean in the context the round ('that turns case because they sustain the root cause', 'that means its try-or-die to prevent extinction', and so on) and giving me enough time to write all three of those things down (my flow for the above examples would probably look like 'reformism-legitimacy w/ tweaks-t/c, r/c' and 'squo nuclear-use or lose/miscalc-t-o-d'), I should be fine.

---In-Round Adaptation---

I would rather you debate in the way you are most conformable with than change how you debate to adapt to my paradigm.

That said, I do view arguments in certain ways that may impact my ability to evaluate them. My decision will never intentionally be because you did/didn’t do something mentioned below, but they may unconsciously alter how I evaluate the round, so it may be beneficial to adjust to these.

Following these thoughts won’t necessarily give you a decision you want; it may prevent you from hearing a decision you disagree with.

---Top Level---

At the end of a debate, I will identify every argument made in the 2NR and 2AR and resolve them based on other arguments in the round. After I have resolved each individual argument, I will look at how those conclusions interact with each other and determine the winner of the round from there.

This is made significantly easier for me if you pick one or two arguments you are ahead on and develop them to implicate the rest of the debate as opposed to extending a ton of substance from the 1AR/block with little contextualization. For example, if you know you are winning the link, extend the link, explain why winning the link means the rest of the debate is irrelevant, flag what arguments could potentially be responsive to the link, and answer those.

This also means I struggle in late-breaking debates. I generally make sure that every 2AR/2NR argument was present in the 1AR/block, but can be flexible if, for example, the 1AR or 2NR makes new arguments and you need to respond. However, the more of the final rebuttal that is reading cards, the more I am going to have to come to my own conclusions about how certain arguments are interacting, which means my decision may be increasingly out of your control.

This also also means that I take a very long time to make decisions, since I try to resolve every single argument in the 2AR and 2NR and explain why it does/does not matter in the context of the round in my RFD. Like, I think I have been the last judge to submit in literally every round I have judged, and then finish typing up speech-by-speech comments in my free time after rounds. Do with that information what you will.

---Logistics---

I would prefer if you referred to me by a name or nickname, not 'judge'.

I would like to be on the email chain (or SpeechDrop or flash drive), but more so to monitor clipping or to evaluate evidence indicts than to flow. If an argument is not on my flow, even if it is in the document, I’ll assume it wasn’t made. This means it is also good to give me pen time and clearly label arguments as you make them.

A lot of teams are clipping to some extent. I don't feel comfortable voting on clipping absent a team making an argument about it, so I think questions of clipping (or other debate ethics related violations) should be a theory argument made in the round rather than an independent claim to stake the round on. Having an audio recording of a team clipping is helpful but not necessary, if I catch them clipping and you call them out on it I'll consider it sufficient for a violation, but you should still win why clipping (or any other debate ethics violation) is bad and/or why I should reject the team.

I don’t care about speed as long as you are clear, unless you are in a round where someone has an ability-based aversion to speed. If your opponent does not have an ability-based aversion to speed but is more comfortable in a slow round, you aren’t obligated to slow down, but your speaks will benefit if you do.

I will not read evidence to check for quality unless I am explicitly told that a certain card does not make a certain claim. I like smart evidence spin, but if questioned, there should be a line in your evidence you can refer to that you are spinning.

I don't think you need carded evidence for every claim. I think there are a lot of scenarios people read that have very intuitive answers (usually thumpers or link turns) that should be made as analytics for more efficient coverage.

I don’t really have a set scale for speaks. What constitutes a certain score will probably be dependent on the tournament and round. I will give you higher speaks if you are making smart technical decisions, sound good, read arguments I enjoy, are knowledgeable about what you are talking about, and appear to be having fun.

---Policy AFF v Policy NEG---

As hinted at by the quote at the top of this paradigm, I think the vast majority of arguments made in these rounds are not true and borderline unethical. That’s fine, because I am evaluating them through the lens of tech over truth. This has two broad implications:

First, I generally find claims reliant on your arguments being true or having educational value pretty unpersuasive.

Second, I enjoy tech over truth because of the way it parodies actual scenario planning. This means the more your arguments are creative, obscure, and somewhat absurd, the more I will enjoy them.

---AFF:

I defended plans with both soft left and big stick advantages in high school. I haven’t defended a plan in college.

I prefer specific advantage and impact scenarios (naming specific countries, technologies, policies, and so on) to broader ones. This generally translates to liking big stick advantages more than soft left ones.

I think the 2AR case outweighs push is always a good option, but should be contextualized to the round. Instead of just asserting that it’s try-or-die or that I should vote AFF on 1% risk of the counterplan not solving, explain why it’s try-or-die ('our impacts are more probable/happen sooner') or what the 1% risk is ('we're winning a certainty deficit').

---Case:

Most of my experience going for case, in both high school and college, is going for what are functionally DAs placed on the case page, and occasionally picking one or two pieces of defense the AFF mishandled.

I enjoy any form of case turn debate (link turns, impact turns, dedev, spark, wipeout, and so on).

As long as there is sufficient 2NR framing on the question, I can be persuaded to vote NEG on presumption. However, having even a slight amount of offense lowers the bar of how much defense you need to win significantly from only having defense.

I think explicit explanation of how the off case position you are going for makes case irrelevant (turns case, controls the root cause, and so on) can supplement for actually debating case in the 2NR, but winning defense on case will always make the threshold for voting on any of those off case arguments lower.

---T:

Topicality against policy AFFs in the second most common argument I have gone for in both high school and college (the first is Ks).

I am generally more persuaded by teams that choose either precision/predictability/other research-based impacts or limits/ground/other debate-related impacts and explains why that standard outweighs the other one. It is far easier to evaluate predictability versus limits when one team has explicitly said predictability is less important than predictability versus predictable limits where both teams seem to think predictability is good to varying degrees.

I can be persuaded that some other argument outweighs topicality (or any other theory argument) or that it (or any other theory argument) is a reverse voting issue, though it will not take much from the 2NR to dissuade me from voting on the latter.

---DA:

In high school, I commonly went for generic, core-of-the-topic DAs. In college, I have prepared generic, core-of-the-topic DAs, but not gone for them in tournament. I have less experience preparing and going for more AFF-specific DAs.

I enjoy creative turns case analysis (for clarity, that means 'link alone turns solvency due to overstretch', not 'warming causes nuclear war').

I do not care about how generic links are, as long as you are able to contextualize the warrants to the specificities of the AFF. However, the less specific your links are, the more persuasive the 2AC no link or link turn that probably is specific to the AFF will be.

I can be persuaded there is zero risk of a DA if substantial defense is won. However, this can be mitigated about which parts of the DA frame the other parts (for example, 'uniqueness controls the link because they’ve conceded the status quo solves their terminal impact which means any risk of a link is a NEG ballot').

---CP:

In high school, I almost exclusively went for agent counterplans. In college, I have prepared and read more substantive counterplans, but have not gone for them. In both, I have prepared but never read critical and/or joke counterplans ('sacrifice something to some god, that solves'), and have very little experience with advantage counterplans.

The way I view these debates is often influenced by K debate. I tend to care about the interaction between the net benefit & case and between the counterplan & the net benefit more than between the counterplan & case. This can be helped or mitigated with the use of framing arguments.

I am not sure whether to understand permutations as a test of competition or a third advocacy. This usually depends on the specific counterplan and perm, but I could also be persuaded to adopt either view by in-round argumentation.

I don’t care how substantive the permutation argument is in the 2AC, but if you just make a perm with zero explanation, I am not going to be very receptive to new 1AR or 2AR explanations of the perm.

I think I am more conservative than most on counterplan theory. Some of the things people are reading are ridiculously abusive. I am more than willing to reject the team on a well-developed theory argument (that means contextualizing the abuse story to the specific argument and round, not just reading blocks).

My general ideological dispositions for counterplans (I will never default to these, but they probably unconsciously lower the bar for me to vote on them): conditionality and agent counterplans are probably good; new 2NC counterplans out of 2AC counterplan solvency deficits, multi-plank conditionality, and judge kick are probably bad. Any argument not mentioned above I feel pretty neutrally about.

---Policy AFF v K NEG---

---AFF:

I did not have a ton of experience answering Ks while defending a plan in high school. I usually went for some combination of framework and their thesis is wrong. I have no experience answering them in college.

Given my general view summarized in the quote at the top of this paradigm, I think there are usually two angles to win my ballot.

First, winning framework and extinction outweighs. I think extinction outweighs is a pretty blatantly wrong and unethical argument, which means I will find even small answers using the substance of the K persuasive. However, if you can win framework, especially arguments about why debate is a game, fairness comes first, and so on, I am much more willing to vote on it.

If you are going for framework, I generally find fairness and predictability to be the most persuasive standards. I am pretty neutral about clash, and am usually not super persuaded by topic education or advocacy skills. This does not implicate which of these you should go for, but how far ahead you need to be to win one of these (as in, I could vote for fairness even if you are behind on substance as long as you win your debate is a game overview, I will probably resolve clash pretty neutrally, and I will struggle to vote for topic education if the 2NR has any contestation).

Second, winning a link turn and perm. I think a lot of the time, theories get over-simplified for the purpose of making a coherent debate argument. This means these arguments do not need to be, and are often better when they are not, carded. I think a lot of teams would be better off if they just really made an effort to understand what the K is saying and logically thought through how the AFF could be in the direction of that.

Indicts of the thesis of the K are useful for both of these angles. These do not always need to be carded (see the note about teams over-simplifying their theories, I think many teams could benefit by just thinking through the theory and pointing out the most apparent flaws). I think I am generally more persuaded by arguments that the implications of their theory are problematic and/or that their theory is not applicable in the context of debate than arguments that their theory is completely wrong (as in, I prefer 'psychoanalysis is anti-black' or 'psychoanalysis can’t explain politics' to 'psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable'). However, the latter argument becomes more persuasive the more totalizing their theory is (as in, if they are making claims that progress is never possible, you could win specific historical examples that disprove that thesis).

I am generally not super persuaded by arguments that scenario planning or talking about existential impact scholarship are good, that holistic theories about how the world works are bad, that the negative has read other positions that contradict their thesis, that the alternative is abusive, or that a certain theory lacks scientific support. I will listen to these arguments, but it will not take much for the NEG to dissuade me from voting for them.

---NEG:

This is my favorite argument to read and the one I have gone for the most. I high school, I primarily went for anti-capitalism and a variety of “high theory” Ks. In college, I have gone for Nietzsche.

I think I am pretty well versed in K literature. I have read aesthetics, anti-capitalism, anti-statism, Baudrillard, biopower, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, and queer theory in debate. I have read literature for all of the above plus existentialism, Levinas, linguistics, and theology outside of debate. I have also coached teams who read anarchism, anti-blackness, afropessimism, anthropocentrism, black feminism, and settler colonialism. However, the way that authors are explained in debate often differs from their source material, and even within debate differs from round to round. Therefore, you should still explain your theory to me from scratch, but I will probably be able to comprehend it.

I am of the opinion that the number one factor in determining the ability of critical teams to succeed is knowledge of their literature. If you understand what you are talking about, you can probably explain why the AFF is bad and why their answers are wrong.

I don’t care how generic the 1NC is as long as the block contextualizes it. If the block makes it clear you haven’t through about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will reflect that.

I typically care more about the link & impact, how those implicate case, and how the alternative implicates those, than how the alternative implicates case. I am susceptible to K tricks (root cause, turns case, presumption) that allows you to win the K without disproving or solving the case. I do not care if you go for the alternative in the 2NR, or if framework can functionally act as an alternative. If you are winning the tricks above, I have no reservations about voting on the K as if it were a DA.

There is a list of arguments in the AFF section that I do not think are very persuasive against the K. Spending any amount of time answering these will probably be sufficient to dissuade me from voting on them.

I do not think the overview needs to be anything more than an explanation of the theory and maybe a lens I should use to frame the round (I think this should often be embedded into the extinction outweighs debate, since you know that’s what the 2AR wants to go for). I find longer overviews hard to flow and think that the majority of the arguments they make could be done somewhere on the line-by-line.

Ressentiment <3

---K AFF v Policy NEG---

---AFF:

I defended a planless AFF almost exclusively my senior year of high school. I have defended one exclusively so far in college.

I think it is important that the 1AC is internally consistent. Your topic links, impact, angle against framework, and method should all be either part of the same theory or be constructed in such a way that makes it appear as if they are. This overarching theory should then be your primary angle against any off case argument.

I think performance aspects of these rounds are great but often struggle with how to evaluate them. The later AFF speeches will probably need to explain if I should understand it as part of the method, a solvency mechanism, or something else.

If you have a role of the ballot, I need very explicit judge instruction about what it means contextually to the round.

---Case:

I am a good judge for presumption. I am more persuaded by arguments about investing the ballot with the capacity for change being bad or movements like the AFF already existing and being appropriated in the status quo, and less persuaded by arguments about the ballot not solving or debate not changing subjectivity.

I think the best angle for AFFs against presumption is to deny having the burden to prove their method actually solves, followed by arguments as to why their method actually does solve.

Teams seem to think that the only way to engage K AFFs on case is offense. Teams should be more willing to read defense. Explain why their theory is not true, not applicable to the topic, or not what their authors are talking about. This does not need to be carded.

---T:

I prefer AFFs to have very offense heavy approaches that impact turn specific standards or topicality as a whole, coupled with a few pieces of defense that mitigate some of the NEG standards.

I usually consider the AFF counter-interpretation first and foremost a way to mitigate NEG offense without linking to your own, which means I am generally less persuaded by standards created by the hypothetical model of debate you have defended. I think the most important part of your counter-interpretation is what the role of the NEG under it is and how they can interact with AFFs allowed by your counter-interpretation.

I prefer NEGs to develop one or two standards and explain how those standards independently turn the AFF offense, coupled with switch-side debate or a topical version of the AFF as a piece of structural defense.

I care about the NEG interpretation significantly more. I think the specific wording of your interpretation often implies more or less than that teams should read topical AFFs. Both teams should consider exactly what the interpretation entails and use that to their advantage.

I do not think a 2NR that goes for T needs to go to case to win. I also think it is possible for a 2AR to beat T with only case. It is dependent on how both teams frame the interaction between the two arguments.

---DA:

I think more teams should be willing to read DAs against K AFFs. Most of them are making critiques of the topic or broader concepts like capitalism, security, and hegemony, and it is offense at the level of their theory to prove that those things are good.

I think winning a DA requires winning some level of turns case analysis, because I would struggle to vote on extinction outweighs against a K AFF that makes any substantive response to it. These are usually done best as a description of the negative consequences of your impact’s absence, not positive consequences of it’s presence (as in, go for 'losing hegemony causes increased inequality', not 'hegemony solves equality').

I am usually not persuaded by AFF no links to DAs. Even if your method does not necessarily trigger the link, these still function as an indict of your scholarship, and winning that you do not cause the link is probably harmful to the arguments you are making on presumption. If you understand the theory you are defending, you should be able to win that capitalism, security, and hegemony are bad.

I think AFF teams are better off using their scholarship to prove why defenses of capitalism, security, hegemony, and so on are problematic, and proving why that is more important than whatever existential impacts the DA attributes to them. This does not have to be carded, and is more persuasive than reading policy answers from an impact turn file.

---CP:

I do not have an aversion to reading policy counterplans against K AFFs, but I am yet to see one deployed in a way that is strategic. Almost all of them are predicated on using the state, which the AFF has either preemptively impact turned, or has not, in which case they will probably win a permutation.

I think these are best deployed as an advantage counterplan for a DA, such that you can go for an existential impact while still mitigating some of the structural impacts of the AFF. However, this requires you to be very intentional in ensuring that your counterplan does not link to its net benefit.

---K AFF v K NEG---

I find myself concerned as much about truth as tech in the debates. This does not mean that I will vote on anything other than my flow. However, it means that winning one good argument that uses your theory to explain why the argument they have made is wrong is as good as a ton of smaller, technically advantageous arguments. As long as an argument is not completely dropped, the truth of your argument matters.

---K:

In both high school and college, my preferred option against K AFFs was a psychoanalysis K.

I can be persuaded that there should not be permutations. I find the best justifications for these are often based on how it implicates the efficacy of the methods, not based on fairness.

I care as much about how your different thesis-level claims about how the world works explain the instances of violence described by the 1AC as I do whether or not the AFF has said something that links to your literature base. Both teams should be doing comparative analysis of how their theory can explain the instances of violence spoken to by the other, while pointing out examples from their literature based that their opponent’s theory cannot explain.

I generally prefer specific, nuanced analysis to cards in these debates. I think your understanding of the intersection of the two specific theories will often be better than any general cards from your literature base.

---PIK:

I never read, prepared, or went for a PIK against a K AFF in high school or college.

I enjoy these arguments and think that they are often creative ways to point out flaws with the AFF. However, the AFF will almost always be more persuasive against an advocacy that does the entirety of the AFF except the endorsement of a single word, phrase, or author. I would try to get more creative with your advocacies to make them functionally different from the AFF method, which can also be done by impacting out how whatever thing you are PIK-ing out of implicates the AFF method more broadly.

---LD---

Almost all of my experience in LD was more traditional. Even when I did circuit tournaments, I did them reading a value and value criterion.

For both progressive and traditional LD, I think the 1AR is an extremely difficult time tradeoff against good NEG teams. The best remedy I have found to this was using the 1AC to preemptively answer the most popular NEG arguments (for example, I read an AFF on the term-limit the Supreme Court topic that said 'term-limits politicize the Court which is good', so that when the NEG inevitably said that 'term-limits politicize the court', the 1AR could cross-apply the disadvantage to impact turn it and move on). As a result, I am pretty sympathetic to allowing AFFs to use their case to answer most NEG arguments.

---Progressive:

If you want to just do 1v1 policy, then do 1v1 policy. Everything from the above paradigm applies.

I do not have an aversion to watching 'meta-ethic' 'phil' debates or 'tricks', but also have zero experience with them, so I will need judge instruction to understand how winning the substance of these arguments implicates the round.

My experience debating with a smaller school accustomed to traditional LD makes me fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments that you should defend the entire resolution.

---Traditional:

Value and value criterions function as impact framing devices to me. I care less about who wins their value than who wins under the winning value, which means I think both sides should be contextualizing their arguments to both their and their opponent’s value.

I strongly dislike the trend of AFFs and NEGs defending single instances of the resolution being good or bad and using that as grounds to vote AFF or NEG. Teams should defend broader theoretical reasons as to why the topic is true or false. My threshold for voting for general principle framing arguments and using them to bracket examples out of the round is very low.

---Forensics---

I don't know if I was the only one who read judge paradigms before limited prep events, but I did and tried to adapt, so here is this if you want it. I did international extemp, impromptu, and oration. I generally care about speech content more than speech delivery, but sounding good always helps.

I like when you take unique directions on topics. I usually inserted some philosophy or critical theory into my speeches to make them stand out more. I think critiquing underlying assumptions of your topic or question counts as a response to it and is preferable to just explaining the some niche political topic for seven minutes. My favorite extemp speeches answer the question with a 'yes/no, but...' that speaks to the traditional level of analysis, but adds a meta-level critique of that frame of analysis that complicates the answer further.

Obviously if it’s not a limited prep event just do your thing, I don't even know what adapting a DI would like especially when I like speech content the most. Just pick a good piece, I guess.

Grant McKeever Olathe Northwest High School

Last changed on Tue April 2, 2024 at 5:35 AM CDT

Grant McKeever – he/him – ggmdebate@gmail.com (put this on the email chain and feel free to ask questions)

Experience: Current coach for Lincoln Southwest. Current NFA LD debater (1v1 policy) for UNL (elections, nukes) - did DCI/TOC style stuff senior year (water) and was on the trad/KDC circuit in Kansas prior (criminal justice, arms sales, immigration) at Olathe Northwest HS so I’m most likely familiar with whatever style you’re going for

Evidence sharing - yes please. Would prefer to get word docs but would rather have something rather than nothing.

TL;DR: Run what you run best. I’m open to mostly whatever, specifics down below. Default to policymaker. Give me judge instruction, explain arguments, and tell me how to vote because that’s probably how I will. The rest of the paradigm is moreso preferences/defaults/advice than explicit constraints; my job is to flow the round and evaluate what happens in it, and I try to do so as unbiased as possible.

Don’t be disrespectful. Just don’t.

I've noticed a disappointing lack of warrants and impacts from claims coming out of debates - an argument has 3 parts; you will get a MUCH more favorable (or, at the least, less intervention-y) RFD if you go beyond the claim and give me comparative reasons why it is true and how it frames my ballot.

ON EVIDENCE CITATIONS -

My patience is growing thin on a lot of these questions - I have watched blatant violations of the NSDA rules on evidence (sources:https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hq7-DE6ls2ryVtOttxR4BNpRdP7xUbBr0M3SMYefek8/edit#heading=h.nmf14n). I will not hesitate to tank speaks and/or drop the debater for failure to comply with these standards (and it's magnified if your opponent points it out).

What this means:

You MUST provide cut cards with full citations - this means setting up some form of evidence sharing (speech drop, email, flash drive, paper case, etc.) that I have access to for the ENTIRETY of the debate to check for clipping and evidence standards. THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS." (stolen from Zach Thornhill). This includes having access to the original source material the card was cut from, and provide : full name of primary author and/or editor, publication date, source, title of article, date accessed for digital evidence, full URL, author qualifications, and page numbers for all cards. In round, you only have to verbally say the name and date, but I need the rest of this information provided in another format. HYPERLINKS ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT - THEY ARE ONE PART OF THE CITATION, AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION IS SUFFICIENT TO VOTE DOWN.
I am VERY unlikely to give you much leeway for paraphrased/summarized evidence - this model highly incentivizes debaters misconstruing evidence, and 99% of the time misses out on the warrants as to WHY the claim is true (which means even if it follows evidence rules I am unlikely to give it much weight anyway). In addition, paraphrasing is only used for one small, specific portion of an original source, not summarize pages of information into a sentence to blip out 20 cards. If you are concerned I may misinterpret part of your paraphrased case as violating this and/or are concerned, you should read cut cards that highlight the words from a source read in the debate. If you do paraphrase, you MUST have outlined the specific part of the card paraphrased clearly - failure to do this is an evidence violation.
Clipping, even if accidental, is enough to be voted against - I don't care who points it out when it gets pointed out or how - I will be following along, and if I find you clipped I will vote against you. This is non-negotiable.
Distortion, nonexistent evidence (in here, point 1), and clipping (point 3) are the only violations in which the round will be stopped - that doesn't mean any other evidence violations will not negatively impact your speaks and the arguments I have on the flow.

I don't want to do this to be mean, but these are necessary to maintain academic integrity and faithful representation - especially at postseason and national-level tournaments, these violations are inexcusable.

Pref Sheet (mainly for LD, but works for policy too)

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 1/2

Theory*** - 1/2

Phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5

Other: probably somewhere throughout the paradigm - or just ask

***depends what theory; I can evaluate it, and if you win it I'll vote, but would much rather have substantive theory arguments with substantive impacts versus tiny violations with marginal impacts and reason to vote (for relative example. they don't disclose that's bad > they don't provide cites for every argument in comic sans on the wiki that's bad) (read theory section below)

General

Debate is a competitive game, and it is my job as a judge to evaluate who wins the game. As competitors, you get to tell me how to evaluate the game outside my defaults and why I should evaluate this way - this takes a lot of different forms with many different reasons, criteria, benefits, and more, but my job is to evaluate this clash to decide a winner (which becomes much easier with judge instruction). However, debate as a game is unique with the educational benefits it provides and have real impacts in the way we think about and view the world - I think debate about what debate should look like are important to framing the game, and can easily be persuaded to find extraneous benefits to the "game" to evaluate/vote on.

Tech>truth, though sticking with the truth usually makes the tech easier

Prep Time - not a big fan of people stealing prep. If it gets bad enough I will start to just dock prep time as you're stealing prep so steal at your own risk. I also give verbal warnings, if I tell you to stop please just stop I don't want to be grumpy. TIMES TO NOT TAKE PREP: while someone is uploading a speech doc, as someone is going up for cross, after your prep time has expired, etc.

Speed – Spreading is fine. Make sure everyone in the round is okay with it though before you do. If you spread make sure it’s clear. If you’re super fast I probably can't understand your top speed, and appreciate going a slower on tags/analytics. I'll yell a few times, but if the keyboard ain't clacking/I'm frantically trying to keep up I'm not recording your arguments.

-Within that, I'm probably not going to verbally call on a panel; I'm going to assume the speed you're going at is to best adapt to the other judges; a lot of the same signals tho will still apply, I just won't be as verbal ab it

Framing – it’s good. Please use it, especially if there’s different impacts in the debate. Impact calc is very good, use it to the best of your ability. I'm a policymaker after all you’ll win the round here.

Neg

Ks – I probably don’t know all of your lit. As long as you explain I should be fine and am more than willing to vote on them. I'm once again reminding that you should either send your analytics or slow down otherwise else my flow WILL be a mess. Judge instruction is key here - give me ROB and impact stuff out.

Topicality – I love a good T debate. Not a fan of T as a time suck; it's legitimately so good. If the aff is untopical/topical/exists go for it. That being said, I need good violations on T. Slow down a bit on the standards/voters piece of things. I default to competing interps, but can evaluate on reasonability if it's won.

CPs – Swag. Theory is highly underused here, so as long as I can flow them (slow down on them) I'll vote on them. Condo is usually good but I default a bit to reasonability here - especially if the aff points out specific abuse stories. I default to framing this debate as a scale of "if the CP solves ___ much of the aff, what does the risk of the net benefit need to be to outweigh" - so pairing good case defense and net benefit debate is crucial.

DAs – Good. Please just have at least a somewhat reasonable link chain.

Theory – I'm fine with it. I heavily lean towards drop the argument and not the team unless it's egregious/about in-round discriminatory behavior. Still will default to competing interps but would be happy to go for good C/Is under reasonability. Disclosure (for an example): I think disclosure is good and you should disclose, but I am much less likely (not opposed) to reject the team and instead default more towards leaning neg on generic links/args. Condo/Topicality are probably the only ones that I reject the team on. Generally frown on RVIs, the better out is making those articulations under reasonability.

Case – I feel that case debate is highly under-utilized. A strong case debate is just as, if not a slightly more, viable way to my ballot. However, please pair it with some sort of offense; case defense is good but if there's no offense against the aff then I vote aff. Especially with a CP that avoids the deficits heck yeah.

Aff

K Affs – Refer to the K section. Fairness and education are impacts, but the more they are terminalized/specified (to things like participation) the more persuasive your arguments become. Haven't been in enough FW debates to know how I truly lean on that, I'll evaluate it like everything else - impacts are key.

-TVA is better defense than SSD imo but both are defense; they take out aff impacts on the flow, but if you go for these (which u should) pair it with other offense on the page

Extinction Impacts – have a probable link chain and make sure aff is substantial - that's much easier to win and helps u later on.

I'm a policy kid, LD circuit norms and evaluations can fly over my head. I did a couple years on the trad circuit so I know some things but it's not my forte - refer to the policy stuff and ask questions before round. Judge instruction is still CRUCIAL.

I don't know philosophy and I won't pretend to know it. You can run it but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain it and how I evaluate it - odds are LD time constraints make it an uphill battle.

Not a fan of tricks. I have low threshold for responses to it and actually considering it in the round. Couple this with the theory section above.

I think LD uses the word "ought" for a reason, and that it's to make it an uphill battle to win PTX/Elections DA/Process CPs/any argument that the link relies on certainty/immediacy of the resolution being bad and not the actual implementation (read all your other DAs/CPs to the rez/their plan/whatev)

-this isn't to say you can't just that it's a bit more uphill - win the definition debate to win these are legitimate

You still should be cutting evidence in PF with good, clear cites.

I still will judge this event like any other - judge instruction and impact calc are key.

Most of my policy section still applies (focus on aff + DA sections - CPs and Ks in PF get wacky and is prob easier w/o them).

Good luck, and have fun!

Last Major Update 5/27/2023

Lizzie Place Blue Valley North

Lily Ren Blue Valley North

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:04 PM CDT

Email: lilyren2004@gmail.com

They/she

BVN 23 -> KU 27

Brief summary of my thoughts -

Not very familiar with the topic debate-wise, I have general information because of my political work and research, but don't assume I'll know what you're talking about with buzzwords.

Tech over truth any day. Judges usually always vote on technicalities because debates boil down to that rather than questions of truth. I'm more policy-oriented but I'm open to anything. I'm most familiar with cap K, imperialism, set col as both aff and neg args. I'm more experienced with answering the K than going for it, but don't let that deter you from reading a k. I will only ask for more explanation of methodology and links. I like theory, I like cps, I like das, I like T. Intentional malice = auto loss. I'll + .2 speaks if you make the analogy
"Like a road, it goes both ways". I don't like death good.

Speaks - depends on tournament level and judge pool

Normal Speaks:

27 - 28 = you probably lost but good effort?

28.1 - 28.5 = average I wasn't blown away

28.6 - 28.9 = You're pretty good

29 - 29.5 = OMG go win the tournament

Inflated Speaks

28.5 = baseline

28.6 - 28.9 = average/eh

29.1 - 29.5 = You're pretty good

29.6 - 29.9 = OMG go win the tournament

Top Level - I refuse to go back and read a card in the last rebuttals not only if they're new, but cards that you say to go back and look at with no warrant. Just say the warrant and apply it with "that's X author".

FW - I'm very policy oriented on framework but lean heavily on tech over truth. I'm confident enough to be an unbiased judge and see when a team is clearly ahead. Policy wise, you're better off going for fairness in front of me. Going for the K, you're better off going for education in front of me.

Kritik - I like plan specific links, but I'll still vote for links of omission. If the K is covering literature I haven't listed in the brief summary, I will probably need more explanation (aside from Ks that have to do with a debater's personal experience). I high-key struggle with the old dead french philosopher Ks. I just need explanation and not sound bites. I don't care for the alt unless it's in the 2NR. Framework-y or material, no preference.

Counterplans -I like them, I hate them. Do what you want. I was and am a 2a, so I'm more sympathetic to aff theory args and perms. But once again, tech over truth.

Disads - like them, but if you read a 1 card DA, your speaks are capped at average and will never go higher.

Topicality - Love it, it's fun to watch those debates. I don't mind to a certain extent the quality of the definition but if it get's too silly I won't give good speaks. I don't have much preference on T except for when debating reasonability. I think that aff teams need to explain why their aff is reasonable enough, saying just one more aff ontop of their case list isn't an argument because I think that all the neg arguments of limits/precision answer that.

Theory - I've gone for condo outweighs no inherency twice and won twice, therefore I am a condo god. But otherwise read whatever.

Misc. - Don't be hateful, be nice, I love debate and you love debate therefore we all love debate

Matson Scott De Soto High School None

Jack Shaw Shawnee Mission South High School

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:56 AM CDT

Disclosure

Add me to the chain - jackshaw.debate@gmail.com

Please include the name of the tournament, the teams debating, and the round number in the header of the email.

Email chain > Speechdrop > File share > Google Drive > Flashdrive > Paper >>>>> "We don't disclose"

About Me

Shawnee Mission South 2022, University of Kansas 2026

Pronouns are He/Him/His, but I'm comfortable with any.

I have experience in policy debate on both the Kansas and national circuits as well as LD debate, IX, and IMP2 on the Kansas circuit.

TLDR

Do what you want*. Win the debate from a technical standpoint on the flow to win the debate.

*I will not vote on outright problematic args like racism good, homophobia good, abelism good, etc. and "suffering is inevitable so we should all end ourselves".

If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or otherwise my thoughts about debate, feel free to ask me.

Judging Philosophy

I will vote on anything* you tell me to using an offense-defense paradigm.

An argument is comprised of a claim and at least one supporting warrant. For me to evaluate and argument, and for you to win an argument, it needs more than just an assertion without backing.

Tech informs truth every time. Truth has value but technically winning an argument comes first and is the most objective way to evaluate a debate.

Absent a procedural reason for judge intervention, I will evaluate the debate starting with key framing issues and judge instruction, then often the impact level and impact comparison, then the rest of each side's extended arguments carried through their last rebuttals.

I evaluate the round while being a blank of a slate as possible. While I do have opinions about debate and arguments, I have no real overwhelming ideological predispositions or biases, so don't stress about conforming to whatever you perceive my style to be.

I will evaluate evidence the way it is spun in the round first. I will read over relevant and especially flagged evidence before my final evaluation. If you think it is pertinent, ask me if I want a card doc. I probably will.

There’s no need to call me judge. Call me whatever you see fit instead; just “Jack” is fine. Or just avoid personally addressing me.

If I'm not reacting to what you say with any emotion, it's because I'm trying not to, as I want to evaluate arguments as a spectator without being a distraction or a real-time influence on what is being said.

Procedural Notes

Both teams should disclose a reasonable period before the round. I will not hesitate to vote on properly executed disclosure theory.

Academic ethics violations are bad. To avoid this becoming an issue, be clear where you mark cards and be ready to send a marked copy if it is requested of you.

You can insert perm texts and short rehighlightings, but read your rehighlighting if it's more than a few words.

Speak as fast as you want so long as you are clear. I’ll give two "clear"s if you are not clear. If the problem continues after that, I'll flow what I catch and miss what I don't.

Sending analytics is cool and can boost speaks.

Time yourselves, including CX and prep.

I don’t really care what you do with your CX time; I think of it like a speech that I mostly don't flow. Asking your opponents questions is good and can help speaks and ethos, but if you want to use CX as prep time, I won't stop you.

I always default to open CX, but I am fine if all of the competitors agree to closed.

Speed is good and preferred if you can read clearly and if there is no ability-based opposition in the round, but you'll be better off speaking in a style you are comfortable in front of me with rather than one you are not, especially for rounds with a tricky panel.

Speaks will reflect the quality of debating done, though difficulty of the tournament's pool will scale all of my point assignments. I am open to using speaker points as objects to be discussed in the round as a form of solvency or praxis if you can win it, but I lean towards using the ballot, including speaks, as I see fit rather than as praxis for debaters.

If I can give an oral RFD, I will. I will be as efficient and direct as possible and will share the reason for my decision as well as broad comments for both sides with more specific comments being left to the ballot, as I respect the competitors' time. With that being said, I am always open to questions and can elaborate as much as time allows me to. Feel free to email me after round if you have any questions, comments, concerns, ideas, etc.

Online Debate

If my camera isn't on, assume I'm not there unless I say otherwise.

Please turn your cameras on if you are able and feel comfortable doing so.

I understand and empathize with tech issues, so just keep us updated as best you can on resolving them as they arise. If a tournament has tech time allotted, let us know clearly (if possible) if/when you need to use it.

I will likely have some good headphones to listen to you with, but I may still miss something if you cut out or are inaudible, so play it on the safe side and prioritize clarity over speed.

Mute if you aren’t speaking, especially if there’s background noise. We all should be able to hear the speaker as best as possible without external distractions.

Case

I like to know what I’m voting for, so be clear about what signing my ballot for you entails and affirms.

You don't need a plan to have an advocacy, but you should at least have an advocacy.

Kritiks

I'm partial to letting the aff at least weigh their impacts on FW.

As with evaluating an aff's advocacy, make sure you tell me what I’m voting for when I vote neg for the alt, whether that be “reject the aff” or a fundamentally new model of society or anything in between or beyond.

Arguments centered around identity should appropriately reflect the debaters advocating for them. I am all good with those arguments in a vacuum and by no means would I force someone to justify their identity, but this is something to keep in mind when making that personal and strategic choice in front of me.

Disadvantages

Intrensicness is bad and my threshold for voting for this argument is very high.

Counterplans

All counterplans will be evaluated as legitimate until the aff wins otherwise.

Judge kick is good when applicable. If the neg can win that condo is good, I will default to judge-kicking a counterplan unless the aff can win otherwise. However, if a counterplan is in the 2NR, I will flip presumption to the aff unless the neg can win otherwise.

Topicality

I default to competing interps.

RVIs aren’t real at least for affs with plans.

On the question of framework / T USFG, I consider myself somewhat aff-leaning, but I won't hack for the aff by any means.

Theory

My reject the team threshold is high but my reject arg threshold is lower.

Don't spread through your analytics at max speed if you want me to catch them.

I generally like to flow non-arg-specific theory like condo on a separate flow to keep it clean, so make sure to note where theory is on your roadmaps.

PerfCon is oftentimes more of an internal link to condo than an independent voter, but I guess I can vote on it if you want me to.

For an ethics violation, I need to have clear and definitive proof of the abuse occurring as well as a clear willingness to stake the round on it before I can consider pulling the trigger. However, at the point at which abuse has clearly occurred, I am partial to dropping the team. If I agree with the violation, then the violating team gets dropped with minimum speaks and the other team gets max speaks. If I do not agree with the violation, it's the inverse.

Lincoln-Douglas

Traditional > Kritikal > Philosophy > Theory > Tricks

I debate on the Kansas circuit, so I've really only been exposed to conservative/traditional LD, though I am confident in my ability to adapt based on my policy knowledge.

I default to organizing the debate by flowing definitions and burdens, values, criterions, aff contentions, and neg contentions on their own respective pages.

Definitions > Value > Criterion > Contentions

Colby Woodland Topeka Seaman

Login to Tabroom

Lansing Debate Invitational

2021 — Lansing, KS/US

Novice Paradigm List

Judges