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.

In general I am looking for solid argumentation. I have no stomach for resting assumptions on trivial challenges to picky rules that you feel have not been met. Cross examine, back your argumentation on solid evidence (I am a sucker for good source citation) and meld your growing argument not on trickery but a good foundation of ideas and evidence. If you talk fast, be sure to make eye contact with me and the judges (or screen) - I'm not impressed by fast reading. If you can't make it your own in the actual time allotted, then you need to pare it down. I am a tabula rasa and am open to lots of different perspectives. Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.). I'm fine with theory, as long as you have solid evidence to support. I am swayed by emotional appeal - that is to say, if you are PASSIONATE about your argument and you speak to me, I find that compelling. A regurgitation of random thoughts that don't come from you or seem distant to you are not going to get me to give you that edge. I look for logic and emotion.

I debated for 3 years in high school and 1 year in college and have been a coach for 4 years.

I almost always am a policymaker with some exceptions when it comes to kritiks.

I prefer any impact other than nuclear war. I'll listen to nuclear war impacts on DAs, and I've voted for them but I have to be able to see a clear connection on why the voting for the aff would cause a war, the links need to be very strong. As a policymaker I want to be able to evaluate how the plan would hypothetically affect people which is why I tend to prefer smaller magnitude impacts that let me weigh the benefits of the aff with the potential harm to individuals. Also on DAs, I highly value uniqueness. If you're going to run a generic link, at the very least have super recent evidence. Same goes for specific links as well; recency will almost never hurt you, but old evidence will.

As for topicality, I don't mind it and have voted on it before but to win on T alone with me you'd have to do significant work on the voters. I will not vote on T because the neg thinks the aff might be abusive, you have to be committed to this strategy all the way to persuade me to move away from a policymaker framework to examine topicality.

I don't enjoy counterplans but I'm not opposed to them. If you think that a CP is your best strategy in that round then by all means go for it, just know that I almost always will think that there are better arguments to have made. On the aff, I don't want you to read every perm in the book. Do some solid work on theory and I will likely buy it.

Kritiks are important and have some place in debate. That said I don't want to hear a K every round, but I am familiar with most literature and as I said above value arguments that allow me to weigh the aff with the impacts on individual people. The role of the ballot is very important to me, along with being able to do the analysis on your own without just reading a block at me. You will need to do a significant amount of work to get to move me from policymaking to kritiks, however if you think this is your best strategy I trust your judgement, just show me it is your strongest argument.

As for the aff, I don't like K affs, and I prefer a lot of advantages (scenarios). I believe affs should read a plan text. Don't get too overwhelmed by the neg and forget about your case. Far too frequently I see affs that have totally lost track of their advantages by the 1AR. I will not weigh your advantages against the neg if you left them untouched after the 1AC.

In general, I'm not picky on your speed, I'll flow the round so please be very clear on what arguments you are making and where on the flow you want them. I will flow however you want as long as you tell me what argument/card goes where. I like a strong impact calc throughout the round. Anyone can read cards, I value the analysis of if the proposed policy is good or bad and why. There's more to that than just reading the evidence.

If you have questions about specific arguments or want more information about something you can ask me before the round or email me at lglingenfelter@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa

I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.

Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.

D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.

K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer. 

Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.

Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.

Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.

FORENSICS:

I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...

DEBATE:

3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.

Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.

My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.

Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.

Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!

Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.

Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.

Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).

Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?

Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.

Speaker points-

There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:

1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)

2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.

3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.

4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.