Eisenhower High School Invitational
2021 — Goddard, KS/US
Novice Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Make the round chaotic and fun, read bold(not controversial) things. If you make the round fun to watch your chances of winning probably go up. Psychological bias goes crazy
Speed is fine, I prefer email chains: 23Chayden@gmail.com
Procedurals: I'm not gonna watch for you to slip up when it comes to ev violations. If it happens tell me if you want the round to continue or not. With other procedurals, if you're a bad person and get called out on it have fun facing the consequences of your own actions.
T: give me voters and actually clash with interps and this debate will be fine. Clash looks like more than reading a counter interp.
DA: any DA is fine. impact calc is needed. Debate these how you wanna debate these. I think kicking parts of DA's and turning them into smthn else is always fun to watch.
CP: Beyond the basics of CP things theory is fine and I'm open to seeing more of it. I think it'll be hard to convince me that condo is just flat out bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be yk? Just let them read their 2 off. This changes per round, have a good interp and I'll vote on it
K's: Read what you want I'll follow along. I'll try my best to understand the thesis of your k and will probably read some of your ev. I know cap and generic K's but also am familiar with Deleuze, Baud, Heidegger, Bataille, and Nietzsche's ideas. I've seen exactly 1 performance K round and thought it was cool. Kaffs are cool too.
Theory: Have an impact and extend it pls. I know the community has accepted norms and stuff for what's abusive, but I never see warranted analysis of why these things are important in round. You can be as abusive as you can get away with on theory
do pre round disclosure btw? idk why ppl don't. Good disclosure practice means good debate. If there's issues with disclosure and they read it there's a significantly large chance you're not winning the round
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. I prefer the negative to have one coherent stance rather than run conflicting arguments and drop half of them during the round. I am ok with running arguments you don’t intend to extend as long as you win any turns and make clear they are being dropped. 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.
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 unless you understand it and have discussed it with your coach.
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.
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.
debater @wsu. Debated four years (arm sales, CJR, water, NATO)
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
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.
familiarity/confidence in judging
AFFS - Policy> K plan>/= K alt> performance (love these just haven't judged them but Suprise me)
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.
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.
I evaluate DAs in the following order of importance Link>IL>UQ>IMP.
I Love when DA's span multiple sheets I.E turns adv, decks solvency etc
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.
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.
tbh these debates don't have much to comment on just ask questions if you got some weird strategy.
Explain the story of 50 state
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.
Perms need to be explained in depth. often times policy teams throw out perms and don't understand what the aff looks like under the alt. pick a strat by the rebuttals either go for the perm no link or impact turns doing both in the 2A is fine but 1AR should make a decision for a winning 2AR.
I'll def get a lot of 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!
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.
effects T is a voter start utilizing it
Unpopular opinion but 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.
Find them cool do what you got to do to win as long as you can justify.
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!)
Hi, my name is Bennett, I'm a fourth year debater this year and my dad is the anodver coach so I've been around it my whole life! I really enjoyed judging last year even online so i'm super excited to do it in person this year! That said i just have a few things that you should know.
I just have a few standards
1. If you are going to run T, then i expect you to run full T. I will not vote on it if you do not have full violation, standards, voters, etc.
2. I expect you to follow the novice packet for at least this tournament as that's what the big bois seem to want.
3. I do not tolerate blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. I know that there are a lot of racial arguments this year especially environmental racism, and those are good arguments, however the answer to these is NOT that they are not a problem or any "discrimination good" k arguments. there are many good answers to these arguments such as solvency, cp's and many others, therefore I will not vote on simply saying that racism doesn't exist or is not a problem.
4. I understand it is your first or second tournament and you are novices, I don't expect the world of you, just try your best and remember to have fun! I cried my first round of my first tournament in novice year, and yet here I am being a fourth year debater! If I can do it then I know you can as well :)
tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
call me dom and use they/them pronouns
wichita state university: 2018-now
coach at maize high school
certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants
clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar
i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier
insert graph joke here
i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects
for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated
for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence
many of my preferences for fw apply here
reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling
i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded
i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve
it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan
-soft left affs-
the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter
actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated
condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff
misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly
cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks
inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence
new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity
I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR)
Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU.
Yes, add me to the email chain, my email is email@example.com
I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round.
Framework- Usually debates inevitably come down to competing models of debate. You need to be able to explain why your model of debate is best. I will vote for the framework that has the best impacts(obviously but just making sure I put it out there) I have voted for education before (with fairness as an IL) but I am comfortable voting for literally anything.
K- I am super comfortable with K's, just make sure you are able to explain the alt well. Explain the role of the ballot and how the alt is able to function when I vote for a K, you know... the usual K things. I won't do the work for you when it comes to these types of arguments.
Theory- I love theory, but make sure you execute it properly. Not much else to say here, but if you have questions you can definitely ask me before the round begins.
T- I have voted for T in the past. I expect their to be competing interps when T is presented. I'm also cool if you read no interp and just impact turn T. Do whatever you want I will flow.
I have a lot of opinions on a lot of different arguments, but I will always defer to what is said in the round. I will vote for anything, my paradigm is only a suggestion of what I like to vote for. Just make the best arguments in the round and you will win the debate.
Above all be nice to one another. That doesn't mean you can't be assertive just don't be mean, it's pretty simple. If you have any questions, just email me.
I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 10+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. I do not like open cross-ex if one person on the team just dominates the entirety of all cross. I’m not a big fan of Kritics but it better be great and really convincing if you run it. Otherwise, policy maker is my default. Topicality is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it. Lastly, please have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans do not need to be fully topical, and you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses. Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually KSHSAA violations as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round. Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a veryveryhard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).
I was a high school debater, current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience and I am always up to date on current topic. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans. I am a game player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book.
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. *Policy and LD only*
I debated for 4 years at Eisenhower High School (KS) at several levels, captained the team, and founded the school NSDA chapter, serving as president for 2 years. I'm definitely not very good, but I do have a personal investment in the sport.
I will only flow cards that are signposted and tagged CLEARLY. Spreading is discouraged (I ran a lot of FW against spreading), but it is a part of the sport, so just make sure I know what to write down. Speaking points are a separate part of the ballot for a reason; better arguments win the ballot and better speaking wins the points. Extensions are important, but if both teams drop a line I will default to having the most recent argument win the flow.
I am typically tabula rasa but default to stock issues with priority on T (my favorite argument when I was a novice) and S (a huge deal) if not given FW. I have limited experience with high theory (i.e. a couple dozen rounds junior year at KSHSAA 5/6A State and a big part of my senior year) but it will earn you bonus points because I think it's fun. If you're gonna run a K it has to be relevant and GOOD (there's a couple Ks I ran and ran against that were really cool, but most are just annoying). I tend to be be a bit biased against the Ks; prove to me it's worth my time. Any other arguments are alright especially if you can give a convincing reason why (I once read 7 CPs as Aff).
I don't like boring debates that are just case files argued the same way I've heard a thousand times. That being said, I have not debated this topic and my only experience is reading through the case lists, so you should try to make the round one that I will remember.
Most of all: make the round fun! Do something silly (with proper justification) and try to leave the round knowing more than when you came in!
I will try to write good and well-structured ballots, but if you want additional comments you can just ask me after the round or tournament. If you want any extra clarification on my paradigm, you can just ask before the round and I'll answer once both teams are present.
As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!