Eisenhower High School Invitational
2021 — Goddard, KS/US
JV/Open Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Experience: I competed in high school policy debate for three years and LD and IX for one year. I have judged a few topics since then, especially in 2020, but have not had the opportunity to do so on the 2021 policy topic.
Speed: I am unfamiliar with this year's topic, but am generally comfortable with moderate-speed speech (please don't spread; I won't be able to track what you're saying. If you're uncertain, assume I'd rather you go slower and I understand what you're saying).
Voting Issues: I'll evaluate the round based primarily on core issues you centered the debate on, but I won't ignore stock issues or blatant abuses of topicality (if topicality is brought up in the round). Communication skills are secondary to your actual argumentation; provided that I am able to understand your line of reasoning and your arguments, that's what matters most to me more than pretty speeches (though those are always a bonus).
Misc.: Roadmaps and signposting are crucial; don't trust me to inherently know what you're responding to based on context. I also prefer it if you reference a specific subpoint/tag as you respond to points + cards, because I often miss author/dates in favor of recording the substance of the card. I also have an auditory processing disorder, so clarity is important (don't worry; I catch most everything/can figure it out from context clues, but I appreciate clarity + general explanation if necessary in your speeches to help me out).
I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS (Haysville, KS) for 5 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center, KS, 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 the argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Don't assume that I will use the same reasoning or make the same connections as you do. It is your job as the speaker to help the audience understand and prefer your position in the debate. Keep it civil as well. I prefer arguments based in reality not theoretical or philosophical impossibilities.
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. Debaters often make the argument that the way a judge votes determines if a policy passes. I have never heard or seen a legislative session in Congress use spreading to pass laws. I really don't want to hear this in the round.
Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments. This means that you must do more than read evidence.
Head Coach of a large 5A Program. I debated 4 years in high school and in college. Will listen to everything. Speed is fine. Tell me where to flow and how to vote.
Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.
Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.
Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.
Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.
LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it. Quibbling over definitions for values and criterion can get stale quick, and probably won't be a voter for me unless it's dropped or is egregious.
Try not to curse, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.
Be polite and have fun!
I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.
I’m a head coach.
I did not Debate in High School or College but was in Forensics.
I’ve judged a handful of elim rounds and more than twenty prelim rounds on this topic, in about a dozen tournaments, but I don’t know the exact count.
My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts communication and resolution of substantive issues.
My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.
Fairly rapid delivery is ok, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate and have clear points
Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.
Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignore or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise.
Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.
Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed.
I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do not find that persuasive at all.
Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality and decorum.
Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.
Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.
Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.
Please add me to your email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.
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
or speech drop...
I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round.
Impact Calc is usually the most important part of a debate round. If you don't tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents I'm likely to vote for your opponent. With that being said, you don't have to spend more than 30 seconds on it.
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 roll 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. Unless something is dropped or someone is outrageously not topical, I probably won't vote for it. I think with this years topic, a lot of teams are running effectually topical cases, I will vote for this if the argument is ran correctly. If you do by chance run a case that is effectually topical, don't fret, just explain why T isn't a voting issue or that you are reasonably close enough.
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 mentioned that I rarely vote for T, that doesn't mean that I will never, just that up to this point, the T arguments have been weak. 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 debated for a little over 6 years, 4 in high school and 2 on the collegiate level. I would say that I am close to being a stock issues judge, but overall, I prioritize respect in the round. :)
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.).