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

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

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

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

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

Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

David Freeland

No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:

Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.

Debate-specific paradigm:

Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.

-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.

-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.

-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.

-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.

-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.

-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.

-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.

-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.

-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.

-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.

TLDR- I know my ballot is long, its so that you can understand my approach on any argument don't read it all if you don't want to especially if you know your strat going in is a 1 off k why read my thoughts on T then lol. Go for what you're familiar with as a judge my job is to adapt to you as long as you engage with the debate rather than spewing off your coaches 100-page brief. I'm fine with speed or speed K's, open to nontraditional debate or straight stock issues. Please ask questions before round if you're not sure of my opinion of something or what I default to on things such as T standards and Judge kicks. * if a judge is against spreading that I'm on a panel with please accommodate that judge its always so awkward to have 2 of us in the know just to ruin the round for the outlier. However, don't apply that logic to k's please!

add me to the email chain Jaceyg957@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL

Tech > Truth

Plan specific analytics > generic links.

NEG FLEX GOOD (unless you win condo neutral on condo)

Open >Closed CX (I flow CX but don't apply it to the debate unless in speeches)

Bias always exists no matter what another judge writes we all have bias and let them manipulate the ballot in one way or another I will do my best to ignore them and judge purely off of the mechanics of the round however don't be afraid to post round me if you feel that I'm wrong, however be respectful about it (especially seniors)

I'm more than fine with spreading I've ran 11 off rounds before however slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

Rebuttals I really like 2nr 2ar consolidation So slow down and go for what you'll win.

Judge instruction is key even if you don't debate K's arguments such as framework, ROJ, ROB, telling me how to evaluate evidence is crucial to an easy ballot, I need to be able to justify the route I took to sign the ballot for you even if it's a simple MAG= EVERYTHING, PROBABILITY= 100% TIMEFRAME=YESTERDAY.

Please call me Jacey or J calling me Judge is kinda weird when most of you have debated me or at bare minimum are only 1-3 years younger than me, I'm "old" to you but not to the world at least not yet :(

Plan text/CASE (policy)

1AC often times go in with a plan like "set standards on (insert)" I have no idea what this means please be able to specify in cx or 2ac, more specificity the better or else I will lean neg on generic case debates/theory. I love high quality evidence and miss when case debate was a thing, it's okay if your evidence isn't 100% accurate but if the competitors call it out then good luck :).

DO line by line I beg, often people do overviews and then move onto to the off case, I will not cross apply for you.

Read re-highlights I need to know what part the highlight takes out

Presumption is so underutilized; I will grant 0% solvency if warranted however this goes both ways if a CP/ALT is introduced.

DA-

I care most about the tech and utilization of the DA I'm a good judge to run DA's you wouldn't run on lay circuits, you have to defend the entire DA if you lose one part that's wraps (mitigation is different that's below☝). "DA outweighs and turns case" + the inverse aren't actual responses flesh out what that means.

Lastly idc if the impact is both nuke war or if its climate v nuke war, explain why your side is more important too often debaters get lost in the sauce on the magnitude level when the other aspects are far more important unless FW tells me otherwise and even then, when it's both nuke war, we have to break that tie somehow.

CP-

I love Funky CP's do ADV CP's or PICS if you want just execute them well.

Explain the perm, most times the CP can easily be permed but Aff teams don't go further than "perm, perm solves" without explaining what the world of the perms look like.

Theory-

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it, Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

Condo vagueness and disclosure are all viable with me, anything else you'll have to just try and see.

K's!!! -Just ask me my thoughts on your k lit before round lol

I ran a lot of Cap and eco fem k's throughout my last two years in high school with a little bit of set col and anti-blackness, I understand the general thesis behind psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, and some of the pomo k's but don't be afraid to overexplain. Do not expect me to do the work for you if its cap or eco I have some leniency.

I could care less if the alt is "discuss the aff through a Lens of (insert)" or "we set a global paradigm shift." just be able to defend the strategy you go for. Don't do 5-minute overviews and then cross apply it just do the line by line at that point.

please read the literature and be able to explain the link story clearly, I will not grant you 100% of the systematic violence your k tries to address, that's so unrealistic so gage what you can or cannot solve for and or what impacts the aff causes due to the link.

I'll def get heat for this but I think too often teams are afraid to take the positions they believe. I'll listen to a cap good debate, even if people argue its immoral 1 no it isn't it's a discourse, I'd rather have the discussion in a controlled environment like debate and 2 we should engage in all perspectives 3 its real world most old heads support cap.

K affs/performance -

I've written a couple k affs and ran one myself for a little bit, I would like some relationality to the topic however if you decide not to then please be ready for the T debate.

I like K aff debate however don't be annoyingly snarky most of the time inclusion is better to resolve harms addressed then making everyone opps right off the bat. being assertive is good but there is a line I'm a very expressive person you'll see if I think it's too far.

I'd like clear framework with a ROB and ROJ often times when K affs drop its due to a lack of understanding on what exactly the ballot does or how my specific orientation with the aff resolves any harm.

when responding to T I like impact turning T however a crafty counter interp would be nice!

T/FW

I default to fairness acting as an internal link to something like Edu however if you make fairness an impact beef it out.

T v K- I think that Policy teams too often stick to the blocks rather than engaging with the merits of the 1AC. If you go for T in the 2nr explain why the method is bad and do a fair amount of case/presumption work. even if you win that the game of debate should have rules and the aff violates, you need to be able to defend why the game is good or else I'm left confused on what to maintain and K teams entire 1ac at least gives somewhat of a stasis point on if the game is good or not.

T v policy- LOVE LOVE LOVE! I love cheeky interps, T subsets sure why not! I default to C/I however have been persuaded by reasonability, but it needs to be fleshed out more than two lines in the 2ac

I don't agree with some judges that T has to be all five minutes of the 2nr I'd prefer if it was, but I understand that on Pannels where a lay judge is present making T five minutes isn't going to work out.

If asked be able to give a case list.

In front of me arguments about standard setting on research and what it means for the season or next season of debate tend to sway me the most.

MISC

please make the flow clean, don't overstep your partners speeches more than is necessary to win the round.

My hand writing is AWFUL so I'll probably just type out RFD/comments and send them to you if possible so that your coach doesn't wonder what caveman judged the round.

(if you get me in LD or PFD just ask me questions I'm not writing another paradigm when I don't know how they got me in here!)

Howdy!

I'm currently a sophomore in College, with debate experience going back all the way to my Freshman year of High School. I went to state and took third in high school, so I would like to think I'm rather knowledgeable when it comes to debate.

TL/DR:I'm more of a Policymaker judge, but obviously I hold stock issues to a high level of importance. I really enjoy arguments that are tackled from a policymaker's perspective, but please don't ignore the importance of stock issues (or how to handle them, I suppose).

In terms of more specifics:

AFF Cases - You must defend an advocacy, and prove that action must be done. Otherwise, your plan does nothing. I strongly prefer policy cases, and I am not a fan of K AFFs, but if it's run well, I'll consider it like any other.

On-Case and Impacts - I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calc. is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency.

T - Topicality is a stock issue I'm not a huge fan of; I see it as a time suck in most cases. However, if you can convince me that the AFFs plan is irrefutably non-topical, and you support it well, that'll be real good. (AFF, I don't mind effect plans, so long as you explain the abuse story well).

CPs - CPs are also something I'm not a huge fan of, because they're often not run correctly. Make sure you have every part of it down, and make sure to convince me of the net benefits of the CP over the AFF. (basically, just run it right, and I'm fine with it!)

Ks / Theory - These are probably my least favorite, but I'll weigh it the same if you can convince me to accept the world of the alt, and not the squo.

DAs - Make sure you provide a link for your DA, otherwise it's not really a DA and more a generic argument. If you provide a link and a harm with it though, you're golden.

Delivery - I'm fine with any speed level you're comfortable with, but please make sure you're understandable while talking. (I'm fine with you talking really fast, so long as you're not tripping over your words)

Ultimately, provide good public speaking with clash, understand I tend to judge like a Policymaker, and we'll all have a good time!

*I do NOT accept speed*

Your job is to convince me that you win the debate. I don't care if the arguments are out of this world as long as you do a good job explaining them to me

Please don't just read evidence, tell me why your evidence is meaningful & explain why your evidence supports your argument and how it deconstructs your opponent's case

I ask that you please signpost your arguments, give a roadmap before your speech, & indicate when you're starting so I can follow the debate easier

I will be keeping time of your speeches, cx, & prep time, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be keeping your own time

Aff

If you drop a single neg argument, you will lose the debate. It's the job of the aff to refute the neg and their arguments against your case. If you drop their arguments, then you concede that the impact of that argument can/ will happen, meaning your case won't be worth passing. If the neg drops the argument you dropped, or they never bring it up that you dropped it, I'll let it slide.

extend all of the case throughout the debate & hammer home why aff is the best way to go

Neg

Please, signpost your arguments, I won't know what you're running if you don't signpost.

T- I'll gladly vote on T if you prove the aff isn't topical with good standards and definitions

CP- give me a good solvency card & a valid reason why the cp will solve better than the aff

K- if you know how to run a k, go for it just make sure you understand what you're talking about and thoroughly explain to me why the alt is more advantageous than the aff plan

Tabula Rasa.

Make the debate interesting; A good K debate is always welcome but if you do not feel you are competent enough to run one well, then please choose a different strategy.

T - Should be more than just competing definitions, rather I would like to witness a debate about why I should care about topicality as an argument as a whole.

DA - Always a good strategy, make your links specific although I will not disregard a generic link but I will value it less.

Cp - Perm as long as it is conditional.

K - Always a wonderful debate, but I would rather see a K debate where everyone understands the literature, and is productive. Alternatives can remain vague but if questioned, need to be answered.

Condo - The best kind of debate.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I debated for 4 years at Campus high school. Please asks questions before a round if you need to. Just try to convince me of your arguments, go as crazy as you want but make it convincing.

Aff

If you drop a neg argument that plausibly outweighs you will lose.

The burden of proof is on you, and at the end of the debate i need to be convinced why I should vote for the affirmative.

Neg

T - topicality is a prima facie argument, I will vote based on a good T argument but I will fault you if you make half hearted T arguments

CP - Counterplans must at least be better than the aff in one way and must be mutually exclusive, simply restating the aff case but from the negative side will lose you the round

K - a good K argument wins, I love Ks, but I want to see a K that is run well and is fully explained

I was a high school debater and current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience, and I am always up to date on current topics. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans.

I am a games player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book. Victory at all costs is my motto when it comes to debate.

I love aggressive rounds. Every argument is on the table as long as you can defend it.

I would prefer to see your speeches in some way to judge the flow. I would like to have a roadmap if you want me to consider it in the best possible way.

Email: jogle@goddardusd.com

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Debated for 4 years at Remington high school

Love good clash in debate rounds

Please give an off-time road map before your speech

I am not a big fan of K arguments 

If you are going to run topicality or a counter plan please make a strong case for it I care a lot about the validity of your evidence