Andover High School Debate Tournament
2021 — Andover, KS/US
policy judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi, I’m Kayla :)
current assistant speech and debate coach at wichita southeast
debated policy 3 years at shawnee heights
former policy debater at wichita state
please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
how to win my ballot:
I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information.
I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.
they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.
I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.
I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.
condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.
I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS for 4 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center for 3 years. I also debated in high school. Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports that argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Keep it civil as well.
If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable.
Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments.
Wichita East High School -Director of Debate
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:email@example.com]
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.
Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.
As a judge, I value the following:
A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.
Respect and professionalism between debaters.
Passion for the art of debate.
I do NOT appreciate the following:
Belittling your opponent
Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.
Name: Tony Nation
School â€“ Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS â€“ Assistant Coach
Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State â€“ Been coaching pretty much ever since.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org â€“ add me to the chain
If youâ€™re looking for LD specific, itâ€™s at the bottom. Iâ€™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 donâ€™t go crazy. If youâ€™re not clear or Iâ€™m behind Iâ€™ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you donâ€™t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and havenâ€™t told me thatâ€™s whatâ€™s going on. So, if youâ€™re giving an overview up top, tell me thatâ€™s what youâ€™re going to do.
As far as argument types and preferences, I really donâ€™t care what you run as long as youâ€™re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, Iâ€™m looking for offense. I canâ€™t remember one time Iâ€™ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. Iâ€™m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless thereâ€™s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you Iâ€™m not a â€œstock issuesâ€ judge. Iâ€™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 donâ€™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 wonâ€™t solve at all. If you argue that there isnâ€™t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, thatâ€™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. Weâ€™ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?
This doesnâ€™t mean I wonâ€™t vote for â€œgenericâ€ 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. Iâ€™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 â€“ I donâ€™t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesnâ€™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 Iâ€™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.
Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.
I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...
3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.
Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.
My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.
Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.
Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!
Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.
Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.
Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).
Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?
Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.
There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:
1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)
2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.
3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.
4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.
I debated for three years in high school, including at state and districts. I am fine with almost any argument (stock issues, advantage/disadvantage, counterplans, Ks), but you must explain why I should vote on a specific issue. If I do not have a specific reason to vote, then I will be forced to default to policymaker, where I vote for whichever policy (plan, CP, Squo, K) has the best DAs/advantages. I judged a fair amount (4 or 5 tournaments) during the arms sales topic, but do not have much experience with the 2020-2021 topic, so do not expect me to know the relevant case info by default.
Errs: If the counterplan and the plan solve the case identically and neither have a net benefit, I will prefer the plan over the counterplan unless given some reason to do otherwise.
Err: If the plan and the status quo solve equally (i.e., the aff loses completely on solvency/harms/advantages), I will vote for the status quo.
I am fine with generic links, unless the aff can explain why the link is flawed.
I will generally not buy 'rule of the game' arguments.
I will generally weigh topicality and theory arguments over case, but if the neg runs T in the 2NR, it is highly recommended that they go all in.
I don't care one way or the other on condo.
Ks are fine, but I am more experienced with the generic Ks like cap compared to case-specific Ks.
Spreading is fine.
I will not consider new in the 2 to be problematic by default, but I will consider it to be a voting issue if the aff makes it an important issue.
If you have any specific questions, just ask before the round.
I understand the basics of debate
You need to tell me why I should vote for you and give me a good rundown of the debate in your rebuttals.
Being Aggressive and clashing is absolutely fine, as long as you aren't disrespectful.
I don't have any preference for arguments, as long as you explain everything thoroughly to me.
I've been judging for four years now.
I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid 1980's. I have judged a LOT of debate over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournament and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.
Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.
You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...
I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.
Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...
I will sometimes ask for a flash of the 1AC and 1NC after the speeches to fill in my flow. I only do this if I need it because I missed things.
Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:
I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.
Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude and tone. At minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. To quote paraphrase a friend, I'll use my "educator pen" to help teach professionalism.
When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.
Prep time/Flash time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that flashing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about flash time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.
CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.
Disadvantages- Like I said, I'm a policy maker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow up in the block. I am not a fan of brand new full offensive positions in the 2NC.
Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative, or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real world and policy level implications of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.
In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.
Counterplans- I'm a policy maker. I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.
T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth over tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.
Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm just not a fan. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I just feel like I'm not your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have never really seen a well debated round in this style.