speech and debate coach at wichita southeast

ad astra debate 

please add me to the email chain: kaylab222@gmail.com

how to win my ballot:

I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information.

T

I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.

da’s

they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.

cp's

I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.

k’s

I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.

theory

condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.

I prefer Stock Issues (I don't love T arguments unless absolutely necessary), but if the round moves that way, I will hear CP's and K's as voting issues.

Ok with speed but I prefer not to see it unless necessary

I debated four years in Kansas at a 4A program. State medalist.

Policymaker with a strong emphasis on resolution of key arguments and speaker ability. T is fine if developed well. Disadvantages need to link. Counterplans are acceptable. No Speed. No K.

I graduated with a History degree from Washburn. I am currently working on an MBA.

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

Email: cadenhickel@gmail.com

Former Policy, PF, and Congress debater for Manhattan High School, KS ('16-'20)

A small amount of Policy debate experience at Emporia State University. ('22)

I competed at NSDA Nationals during my freshman year of HS.

He/him/his pronouns.

Policy Paradigm (listed in order of importance):

Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated. Respect given pronouns.

I'm an even split between a policymaker judge and tabula rasa. I'll almost always be voting based on the overall good vs overall harm of a plan. I should not have to make assumptions about what I should vote for. It's the burden of both sides of the debate to at least give the voting issues in their final speeches.

Speed: Fine as long as it's not full-fledged spreading and monotone. At the very least, slow down on taglines and analytics. I prefer moderate speed so arguments are plentiful enough while still being able to interpret what's going on.

Kritiks: No kritiks in JV/Novice divisions. I have little experience with critical debate. If you're going to run a K, explain well.

Topicality: I encourage a good topicality debate as long as it's not abusive. Violations should be fairly blatant and spend time explaining the standards.

Disads: Emphasis on having a decent link. I expect to hear some sort of impact calc debate in the rebuttals.

Counterplans: I'm indifferent. I have hardly seen a CP win but feel free to change that if your heart desires.

Cross-ex: I strongly advise closed cross-examination.

Debate is educational. Have fun; that is the most important thing to me.

Email: alake@tps501.org

I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (8th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Policy Debate

Overall, net-benefits.

Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.

Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.

CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.

K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.

I'm mostly a stock issues judge, but I also weigh impact of the policy.
I'm good with K's if there's a clear purpose and if it's explained clearly.
I'm fine with counterplans and topicality. Both just need to have a clear purpose and not just added filler.
Really not a fan of high speed. I still flow by hand. I want to be able to understand you.
Being nice and show good sportsmanship, please.

I have experience as a high school debate and assistant debate coach. I care about stock issues. If you are using speechdrop, I will follow along with the evidence. I will also do my best to flow the arguments. Read cards as fast as you want, but if your words blur together because of poor enunciation I won't understand what you're saying. Don't drop arguments. I prefer no new arguments in the rebuttals. If I'm keeping track of your time, I will say "time" when time runs out. I don't care if CX is open or closed, but if any of the debaters prefer it to be closed, it will be. Please decide this before the round starts. Respect each other and don't make any ad hominem arguments.