I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

High School Debate/Forensics – Shawnee Heights (2014-2018)

College Policy Debate (NDT/CEDA) – Wichita State (2018-2022)

Previous Assistant Debate and Forensics Coach at W. East and W. Southeast

Current Head Debate/Forensics Coach at Wichita Southeast High School

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com

I like clean, organized, and well thought out debates that focus more on the depth of the arguments. I also value and reward teams that engage in high levels of clash and attack the warrants of the evidence. I am a policy centric judge, that has coached all types of debate styles. That being said, do what you are comfortable with. However, I am best in debates that revolve around some sort of policy or plan. The best way to win my ballot is doing clean line-by-line and explain why the weight of your arguments matter more than that of the opposing team.

When debating on the affirmative, what I look for is a team that can articulate a story about what the plan is, how the plan solves, and what the advantage of the plan is. I am noticing more and more in debate rounds that teams are not extending each part of the AFF, with explanations of all the moving parts. Even if the neg does not respond to a part of the aff, your job as the aff is to still extend that argument if you want to keep it viable.

If you are going to read topicality, there are a few things to consider. First, I am a judge that is a sucker for in round abuse. Even if you have to bait them into giving you the link on your ground/limit’s arguments, it is something that I am willing to vote on.

I love a good CP/Net Ben/DA Debate. This is the debate I am probably the most comfortable in, and the best judge for. The only thing I ask for in this type of debate is for the negative to explain how the CP solves the link on the DA/Net Ben, I am not going to be this gracious and do the work for you.

I don’t have a preference on whether teams go for theory or topicality. The biggest thing I look for in these types of debates are 3 things: 1. Proven in-round abuse, I don’t really care for the hypotheticals of “well this could happen” I want to know why the other team violated the rules so egregiously that it made this debate impossible for you to win. 2. Voters, this is something that is being overlooked and I am not sure why. Tell me how and why I should evaluate this argument in the context of the debate. 3. On topicality, I am more apt to vote for T if there is some version of a TVA – especially if you make an argument as to how the tva solves the advantages.

I don’t have much thought on K Debate, well-articulated links and solvency is what I look for in a K debate. I am not the most familiar with K literature, so please make sure to articulate any complex components of solvency or any buzz words.

Other niche thoughts, be nice to people, don’t steal prep, please signpost, analytics is not a part of a roadmap (what are the analytics about?), and have fun.

Questions? Ask me before the round.

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

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.

As a policy debate judge, my highest priority is stock issues. They are vital for the affirmative. If any one of Harms, Inherency, A Topical Plan, or Solvency are not there, then I will not vote for the affirmative. I want to be clear that I consider each stock issue to rely on the one before it. I consider advantages to stem from solvency as well. Please arrange your case accordingly.

Regarding Topicality, I prefer to see debates focus that focus more on interpretation and standards than on voters. I always consider topicality to be a voting issue.

I do welcome squirrel cases, but I like to see an affirmative topicality justification in the 1AC.

Please keep speed within reason. If you are reading cards faster than I can get them on the flow, then I will miss them and disregard them. I would much rather see a team speak clearly than quickly.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

Debate Experience//

• Competitively debated at Hutch High in the champ (DCI) division in the late 90’s

• Competitively debated at K-State on the national circuit in the early 2000’s

Coaching/Judging Experience//

• Coached policy debate at Arizona State while obtaining my masters in critical/women’s rhetoric

• Coached policy debate at K-State as the assistant director

• Coached at McPherson High School, Valley Center, and Nickerson

• Currently the Director of Debate and Forensics at Hutch High

Recent Edit:

E-mail chain: yes please: SalthawkDebateChain@gmail.com, please label the subject line with tournament, team, and round #.

Stylistics Preferences//

I was a traditional policy debater in college who ran lots of counter-plans and K’s. My specialty was language/feminism krytiques, which were popular in my era. We always read a plan, but often conceded the plan caused nuclear war, but argued some form of oppression/morality outweighed. While judging college policy, I tended to judge performance based debates, as well as policy. “Academic” research can come from a variety of spaces. I cannot emphasize enough that I have very few predispositions as to what a “good” debate should look like. However, I am interested in well warranted arguments that justify your approach. So, aff’s can justify why they shouldn’t need to support the res, and neg’s can run cheater counter-plans, so long as you justify your approach with more than repetitive tag lines. Also noteworthy: if you do not argue for a particular paradigm, then I will default to a policy maker who weighs the pros/cons of the affirmative proposal/performance. As for the truth vs tech debate, sigh, I go back and forth. As a communication scholar I genuinely value the truth, but as a techy debater, I appreciate the nuances of line by line and well calculated risks. While it's un-likely you'll win by ballot on a topicality RVI, if you put enough work into it and it's relationship to the rest of the debate, it's entirely possible .

Delivery//

I am not flowing from the speech doc, however, I will use the old school technique of flowing the audible speech, perhaps with two colors of pens. In columns. If you feel I should call for 2 or 3 cards after the debate, you better make sure they are good. You cannot talk too fast for me. Keep in mind, I’m flowing from the speech and not the doc, so clarity is important. I take a good flow, and I expect you to do so as well (unless you make an argument that convinces me otherwise). You only receive credit for arguments found on my flow. If I don't know where you are, or am confused, I will give you non-verbal cues, which requires you to pay attention to me. Clash and signposting is important to me. I am not a huge fan of the approach of reading a 10 card regional overview on each sheet of paper that was pre-prepared and then proceeding to cross apply all your cards underneath on the line by line. However, I am a fan of a short regional overview, followed by a nice healthy line by line debate where you signpost what you are answering, read carded responses, provide analysis, and are critical of the other teams evidence.

K’s//

I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the work to explain it. My familiarity shouldn’t win you the debate. Case specific links (carded or explanations) will get you better speaker points.

Language K’s//

Probably the one thing I have pre-dispositions about. We’re a communication based activity, so it will be hard to convince me that your language/representations don’t matter. It’s also 2020, I expect your evidence/tags/analysis to avoid racialized/sexist/trans-phobic language. Won’t automatically drop you, but I come from a less inclusive era and fought the good fight in debates, so supporting diversity via language/argument choices is important to me.

CP’s//

If you can justify it, do it. I wasn’t above reading a cheater CP as a debater, but I also wasn’t above going for no negative fiat in the 2AR. I have a high familiarity CP theory, but your explanations are still required.

DA’s//

Yep. Extra points if they go to extinction and/or turn back the case. I also love morality/ethics based impacts. Neg’s should be prepped to defend your internal link to nuclear war, and to defend your method of scenario building/representations vs the K. Aff’s should have new uniqueness for your link turn, or a high familiarity with your impact turns, or a K prepped.

Overall//

Debate is an academic testing ground for creativity, so be kind, be clear, and have fun!

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).

Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

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 am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I have 50% hearing loss, I would appreciate it if competitors could speak clearly and enunciate! I would love it if I could read your lips but if you prefer to wear your mask, please do the above mentioned.

Please also note that I usually cannot keep up with speedy fast speaking, because of the hearing loss. Please slow down. If you cannot slow down I will mark you down. 

I am debate parent and having been judging for the past 8 years. Consequently, while some speed is acceptable, if I am also focused on trying to understand you. Remember, if I need to understand you or your plan. I need you explain what your are reading off your cards from the laptop. I value your ability to think critically and analytically over your ability to speak rapidly. I need to know you understand your plan and the data you use to support your plan. I need to know you are able to process your opponents claims logically and are able to respond appropriately.

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.

Austin Rea

WSU '24

Email: austin.rea34@gmail.com

Hey everyone, feel free to ask questions before the round if anything is not clear in my paradigm. Additionally, if you find some of this information vague or confusing reading Tim Ellis's paradigm or Sean Duff's will give you plenty of insight into how I view debate.

Experience: I debated for 3 years at Washburn Rural High School. I'm the prototypical WARU debater in that I only ran policy affs and typically only read straight forward Kritiks when competing. I am currently a senior at Wichita State University studying Economics and History.

Technology/Speed: I'm fine with any speed typically, if you aren't clear I'll clear you once.

Preferences: The strategies most likely to win my ballot are policy oriented. Ideally, my favorite types of debates are relatively straight forward fast debates with lots of warranted analysis. On the affirmative, I'm a big fan of well put together and defensible aff's. However, I enjoy straight turning DA's and kicking the aff, if you have the chance take it. I think the most compelling neg strategy in debate is usually DA and case or DA and CP. That being said obviously theory/kritiks are viable ways to win but they are typically less enjoyable unless they include intelligient in round debate and not just blocks.

Framework: I think fairness is extremely important in debate. Plan-less affirmatives are more compelling to me if they are in the direction of topic and allow for substantial neg ground. Aff should focus on their impacts and how they engage with education in the round and why that outweighs fairness or why fairness doesn't matter. Case debate even without specific evidence is helpful in these rounds when it comes to understanding the desirability of the aff. I would say plan-less aff vs kritik rounds are likely be a jumbled mess and confuse me unless it is contextualized well and is fairly straight forward.

Topicality/Theory: Typically, I believe T is a question of competing interpretations. When evaluating interpretations I tend to lean towards models of debate that provide fairly equitable neg and aff ground. Also, when going for a terminal impact on T, I think fairness tends to be the most persuasive IF there is further explanation about why fairness matters in regards to education. On most theory arguments I default to reject the arg not the team but it is possible to win my ballot on conditionality. Spec debates are exceptionally lame. Reasonability is not a real argument.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with most Kritik's, however I am not as familiar with what I'll call identity Kritik's. This does not mean you should never go for one of these arguments. Kritik literature often fascinates me but I don't think its very often both sides are able to have a meaningful debate on it. If you are able to intelligently discuss the merits of the Kritik beyond the tag lines I will be much more receptive. I think alts are under utilized in many kritik debates and I tend to enjoy the debate more if the neg goes for the alt instead of just framework and a link. However, if you do go for the alt its important I get an explanation how the alt resolves at least portions of the aff and also the mechanisms of how the alt functions. Contextualized specific links are extremely important to me in this style of debate. Link of omission=no link

DA/CP/Case: This is the style of debate I prefer, the rebuttals should clearly outline the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the aff. If no impact analysis is done I will not be happy. Never underestimate the value of case arguments, going for solvency or focusing on internal links of the aff is more persuasive than generic impact defense. Counter plans are an essential aspect of debate that challenge the desirability of the aff. Conditions counter plans are kind of up in the air I can be persuaded either way. Consult counter plans I think are almost always cheating, you definitely need to focus on how the CP textually and/or functionally competes if you're going for this kind of CP. Delay CP's are cheating and if that fact is identified by the other team I will not vote on it. Please keep in mind there are multiple parts of a DA required to win a round. Without uniqueness, link, internal link, and an impact I cannot vote on your DA even if it is dropped most likely.

***My suggestion for you is to do what you are good at or what is fun. Too often in rebuttals negative teams will go for what the aff has done the worst on instead of what the neg has done the best on. This is a mistake. Keep in mind you are playing to win, not playing to watch the other team lose.***

Lastly, be nice and have fun. If you have more experience than the team across from you trust me I'll know, there is no need to be mean and make the round less enjoyable for everyone. I don't want to hear you talking during your opponents speeches. Probably the most annoying thing for me to see in debate are when debaters are overly emotional or condescending with body language during opponents speeches.

Speak guuuuuud.

But seriously, I'm a forensics coach first, so I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at a REASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!

Also... CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! And EXPLAIN your cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">

Likewise, Give. Me. Roadmaps. I want to know WHERE you're going with the arguments, and SIGNPOST when you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me know WHERE your argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.

In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. And definitely don't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, you don't need to wait until rebuttals to start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!

Finally, I want the debate round to be FUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.

Tell some jokes.
Drop some geeky, pop culture references.
Make me laugh.
Make me clap.
Give me a reason to look forward to judging another round.

I'm an Assistant Coach at Hutchinson High School. I debated for four years in the KDC and DCI divisions.

In general, I prefer a more open style (heavy use of on-case arguments, DA's, and CP's), however, I want debaters to have the freedom to express themselves and do what they want. DO WHAT MAKES YOU SUCCESSFUL!! I will have an open mind when I submit my ballot. A couple of notes for those who want it:

Speed: Speed in the constructives is whatever. I'd prefer a slower debate, but I can keep up. I would prefer rebuttals be slightly slower, but it's up to you. I'll do my best to not miss anything.

Kritiks: I was never a huge K debater in high school, so I'm not up-to-date on the literature (although I have a baseline understanding of the most popular arguments). Make sure that if you read a K, actually explain its relevance in the round. I will vote on it, but you need to do more work for me than you would on judges who are more familiar.

You will win my ballot by giving me some impact stuff in the 2nd rebuttals and telling me why you have won. I'll vote on whatever framework is presented in round, but I default policymaker/impact calc. It would be great if a team did the math for me instead of having to do it myself. What will the world of the aff be vs the world of the neg? Analysis like this will win you the round most of the time.

PLEASE signpost and provide clash. I'll do my best to write a solid RFD on every ballot so y'all understand why I voted the way I did, even if you might not agree with it :)

Email for email chains if that's how you want to share evidence: royalsandchiefs333@gmail.com

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.