Sal South Cougar Classic NIETOC 2022
2022 — Salina, KS/US
Congress Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Yes email chain please:
Debated four year at Salina South High School
Coached on and off since 2013
Speed is fine. If I can't understand you I will just say clear.
Don't just read pre-prepared blocks straight from your laptop at full speed with little contextualization to the arguments the other team is making. Please don't just speed read over views to me in the 2NR/2AR and expect to win my ballot. Don't force me to make a decision because you chose not to slow down and contextualize your arguments. It's pretty easy to tell if I am agreeing with your argumentation. I will either miss important things you want me to vote on, or I will try to keep up with everything and not think about the arguments which will most likely result in me voting on something that you didn't actually want me to vote for.
K vs FW- If you are going to read a K aff in front of me please take the time to explain what the aff does. Defending some type of advocacy statement in front of me is going to be the best option when reading a K aff. I enjoy topic debates but that doesn't mean that I haven't voted for K affs. I often end up voting neg on FW because the aff doesn't effectively argue against a topical version of the aff. I don't really find arguments about framework creating violence to be very persuasive and reading debate bad in front of me is not going to get you anywhere.
CP- I would prefer that you have a well thought out text than just some vague text that says we do the plan minus x or something like that. Don't be afraid to go for theory arguments in front of me on cheating counter plans that don't actually do anything. I would much rather vote for theory arguments than some process counterplan that does nothing.
K- I'm good on basic K lit but if you are reading some new alt that you haven't read before or are breaking something new I would probably not suggest doing it in front of me unless you can clearly explain what the world of the alternative actually does in a method that you can defend. You need to contextualize your link arguments. I'm not going to give you a lot of lead way on generic masking links.
I think that if you are reading more than 5-6 off that you are just doing too much most of the time. You should spend more time burying them in the block on case rather than reading 4 different CP's that all have next to no way to actually solve the aff and are just baiting them into undercovering something so you can go for it because you were just faster. That just leads to boring debates.
If you have any more question feel free to email me or just ask before round.
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'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 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 :)
Well, tabroom literally deleted my paradigm and I hate repeating myself so here's the condensed version. #FREELUKE
234 rounds judged (yes I update this every round) (going for a record or something) and I'm a 4th year coach.
Debate : I literally don't care what you run. As long as you know what you're reading. If you're rude to other people in the round, I'll think it's cringe and vote you down. Impact calc is always nice. I actually read your evidence so don't self-sabotage. Mean what you say, because a captain goes down with their ship.
Forensics : ALL OF THIS IS CONDITIONAL AND VARIES BY EVENT - Well-developed blocking is always appreciated. A good intro and conclusion are important. Voice impressions or differentiation is nice as well. If applicable, your speaker's triangle is crucial. Confidence is key. Getting in your own head only messes you up.
4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005
4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011
7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)
3 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres
I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.
I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.
I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.
I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).
I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.