I am a 4th year debater, so I understand the activity. However, I have a processing disability. I can keep up pretty well in most debates, but please don't spread or speed read because my brain can't process that quick.

Stock issues: Very important: I generally default a stock issues judge, but if you explain why I should vote policy I will definitely consider it.

Policy making: Less important: I don't like the idea of voting for something that would cause more bad than good, but if you don't tell me how to vote I will focus on who won the stock issues debate.

K

I really don't like K debate. If you are running one you better genuinely believe what you are saying, because if you are just running something saying debate is bad to win a debate it is going to be hard to convince me that you should win from it.

T

I know it's unusual, but I love topicality and theory. I enjoy seeing them get debated, but please make sure you structure it properly. 

I am a college communication professor who has taught communication courses (including public speaking) for over 20 years. I have judged both debate and forensics tournaments, and appreciate clear communicators who understand can bring meaning to what they're talking about.

I am an assistant debate coach. I value the arguments and speaking skills equally. I am ok with faster deliveries but you should still be understandable. I would rather have you speak slowly and clearly than stumbling and tripping over your words trying to go quickly. I also judge on politeness. If you are kind and polite to me and your teammates, you get a few bonus points. It is not advantageous for you to be harsh or unkind in a debate round.

As a debate coach, I want to see a well structured case. You should make it easy to follow, understand and flow. This means I want to see you sign posting and your cards in your shared evidence should be labeled by Advantages, DAs, Solv, etc.

I judge based off stock issues. You should be explaining to me in your rebuttals why your team wins on Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency and Significance. It is your job to break down the other team's arguments and doing impact calculus. You should also be spending the rebuttals convincing me why your team should win and asking me for your vote.

DAs/CPs - I am ok with DAs and CPs as long as they have clear and strong links. I would rather you spend your time as a Neg team presenting DAs or CPs rather than Ts or Ks.

Topicality - Topicality arguments in my opinion are usually weak and do not hold much ground. They do not play a large role in gaining my vote so I would stay away from them when possible.

Kritiks - I am not a fan of K Affs. I believe that it defeats the purpose of the debate and is unfair to the opposing team as it is not topical to the resolution. Do not introduce Ks unless they are well thought out and there are clear links. I think your time can be better used bringing up arguments already tied in the debate.

I am a 4th year debater, Tab judge, ask me if you don't know what that is. I go with any argument, but don't usually vote on kritiks and topicality unless there is obvious abuse in the round.

POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

• Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

• Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech

• Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech

• Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win

• If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped

CROSS-EX:

• Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you

• Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building

• While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote

• Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements

HARMS:

• Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO

• I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.

• Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.

INHERENCY:

• Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO

• Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear

• If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that

• Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is

SOLVENCY:

• Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label

• Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX

• DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card

ADVANTAGES:

• I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.

• Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance

• Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so

PLAN:

• I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.

• I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague

• Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX

TOPICALITY:

• I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

• Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it

DISADVANTAGES:

• I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs

• Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence

• Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

• Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target

• Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole

COUNTERPLANS:

• PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something

• Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round

• Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job

KRITIKS:

• I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not

• I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution

• Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

• Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found

• Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend

• Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

Former 4-year debater at McPherson High School

TLDR: Argumentation wise I'm fine with most anything. I was a 2NC myself so I really like on-case arguments and turns.

I weigh stock issues pretty heavily into my decision, but ultimately I'm tabula rasa, I'll default to stock issues though if not told what to vote for.

Speed

I am okay with speed as long as you are clear, signpost, and slow down when you read tag lines so I can understand when you are moving on to a new card. Also if you plan on going so fast that it's hard for me to understand I would recommend asking for my email and adding me to the email chain so I can see your evidence.

Kritiks

I was a traditional style of debater so I didn't run Kritiks often. The Kritiks I had experience running were Cap K, Federalism K, and Abolition K. Kritiks aren't my favorite argument, that said I'll listen to them and vote on them if run effectively. However, I'm not as likely to vote on a K as I am on case arguments, DA's, and Turns.

Theory/Vagueness

Theory and vagueness are arguments that I believe are run as a time suck 90% of the time, so ordinarily, I never vote on them, but I understand against certain cases it's necessary to run, so in those rare instances they will have an impact on my decision.

Topicality

Topicality is an argument that I think can be good, and win rounds, but if the Aff is obviously Topical don't bother running it, it's just a waste of time. I'd much rather hear another DA, solvency, or inherency attack, something that creates clash than I would a topicality argument.

Analysis

Analysis is something I believe should be present in every policy debate round. I don't want teams to go back and forth reading walls of text to me, I want analysis on your evidence, and clashing warrants as well.

Impact Calc

Impact calc is something I weigh heavily. In a close round the team with the better impact calc will get my ballot more often than not.

I am a former debater and have been involved with judging and working with high school teams for over 35 years. I am currently an attorney in private practice. I prefer old school comparative advantage stock issue policy debate with teams who are not afraid to clash. Terminal impacts are absolutely fine. However, if you set a different paradigm, end up with a counterplan or K-debate, I will follow wherever the round leads. I can handle speed but still flow on an actual yellow legal pad so when you drop a voter or forget a link or impact, I am going to know it.

If you have any questions email me: samuel.houston915@gmail.com

This will be a very long paradigm. Just debate how you would normally debate and it will work out best for you. if you don't understand anything in this paradigm just ask me to clarify.

General paradigm: I'm tab default gameplayer. I will vote for literally anything that you tell me to vote for. I have experience in both KDC and DCI styles of debate. I like both of them and you can run both of them without worrying about me, not understanding.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading, but if the other team specifically asks you do not spread and you ignore the request. It will affect how I vote for you in the round. It's also just kind of a jerk move... so don't.

Speaks: There are a number of ways in which you can raise and secure speaks. The most obvious way is to make fun anecdotes and jokes during your speech. I have a terrible attention span so if you can make it more interesting I will probably pay more attention to your speech. Also, there seems to be a high-brow atmosphere around most debate rounds, and that kind of annoys me. So I really don't care if you swear, or if you talk like an actual human being.

Cross-examination: You can do either closed or open cx. I think both are fantastically fun, but it is annoying to me when people make arguments in cx so don't do that. in my opinion, cx is not binding, but if you make an abuse argument I'll listen to it.

General Pet Peeves: Here is a list of general pet peeves I have about debate. I in no way expect you to read or do all of these things.

• When people go way over time for speeches or cx
• if you make analytical arguments in a constructive and you don't put them on the doc.
• If you have said all you needed to say in the round but keep repeating the same thing over and over. I will not dock your speaks because you have thirty seconds left in your speech, please just sit down.
• when people claim they broke the rules in speech. When they very clearly did not.
• If you do not clearly roadmap and signpost
• if you do not label the DA/CP/K on the document, it takes literally 5 seconds to specify the DA. just do it.

I do want to be inlcuded in email chains/speech drops

Speed's fine as long as speech is shared before reading. Although I still believe quality of evidence over quantity of evidence so be sure to extend your cards.

Typically vote on policymaker but if Aff is losing hard on any Stockissue I'll have to vote Neg

Only run Topicality if you truly believe case isnt topical, time stuck is very abusive taking like 2 minutes of aff reading.

I like theory but keep it short. Just because K's are rare does not mean they are strong.

I dislike O-spec and vagueness args because they are usually abuse arguments made when there is no abuse, which is ironically abusive. Only run these if there is provable abuse by opposing team.

I believe rebutals can win rounds so don't skip out on extra speech time.

I like turn arguments, turn Solvcency, turn Advs, turn DA's, ect.

I like Circumvention Arguments

Don't break rules that's scumy

If you make me laugh you get bonus points (does not gaurentee win)

Email: vlad.peters24@mcpherson.com

tldr: Game Is Game

For Novice. Just make me laugh and you'll win. For the love of god act like you somewhat want to be here or add any kind of personality. Please make me laugh by adding jokes.

First I'd like to start off by saying don't be jerks or disrespectful to anybody, It can and will become a voting issue. But you probably know that schpeel.

At heart I'm a gameplayer and will vote on whatever you tell me to vote in the round. If one team drops a piece of evidence and the other doesn't but egregiously lies about the evidence (pls dont lie about evidence) I will be forced to pref the wrong interp of the evidence as it is the only one in the round. To simplify my paradigm down it could more easily be "Game is game". Tell me what to vote on.

On topicality args, I am of the belief that you do not have to prove abuse in round for me to vote. If you prove that their plan is not functioning with what the resolution specifies and tell me to vote on it, I will vote on it. For example if a plan this year is deficit spending and you prove that deficit spending is not "fiscal redistribution", I do not care if you have case args too, I will not punish you for being good debaters and doing research. Of course I will also vote on abuse args. But I'm not a stickler about what is topical, if something is reasonably topical and its proven in round I will vote on it. If you can prove something is not resolutional I will probably vote on it.

On CP. CPs are legit and whatnot. I believe that you don't neccesarily need a net benefit if you can prove that your CP solves better than the plan (assuming there is no perm) idc I'll vote for it. Imma be real ill prolly never vote for a states cp, get good. Obviously if its uncontested or really well argued I'll vote on it. Once again, game is game. But usually its such a bad arg.

On DA. DAs are really the meat and potatoes of debate for me. I buy generic links if you convince me of a reason why they should apply. I believe the best way of beating a DA is going straight for a link, so if you prove you don't link nothing else matters on the DA flow. So if you clearly prove you don't link, I straight up no longer care about the rest of any of the args on the DA and you don't have to extend anything else on it if you really don't link. On the flip side if a really awful link is dropped on the DA, even if it doesn't apply I'm not gonna judge kick the link for you. Just extend the args reasonably and don't drop them. For the neg too you gotta extend everything on the DA flow for me to consider it. All things considered, I love me a good DA.

On K. I am not a super buff on Ks, Explain everything clearly on K. Treat me like a C student.That means for both sides. K lit can be very self indulgent and can pontificate for too long upon itself. It doesn't have to be in the 1NC but everywhere else explain all the args on the K and why I should be voting on them, although an explanation in the 1NC would be nice. This is one of the few times where (in a poor debate with no analytics, all debate should have analytics) just reading cards won't cut it on K. I'm not going to say you personally have to believe the K to run it, game is game. I am a big fan of utopia args, a lot of alts are all like "If you vote on this ballot, you'll save the world" I buy that kind of arg when the aff is acting as a policy maker, but not when the neg is using this ballot as a way to save the non post-fiat world. If you are going to say that my ballot will stop capitalism please make your alt actually have some kind of depth and steps that we would take to end capitalism. Not a big fan of "Change the space of debate" kind of alts, because god knows this ballot won't change a damn thing. But I'll still vote on it if argued properly. At heart I believe we should be here to debate the res, and if the best way of ending societal harm is taking down capitalism, so be it. But some Ks just get ridiculous, I'll still vote for them but may err aff when the ENTIRE round comes down to a queer desire K. But once again refer to the quote that has been repeated. Game is game.

On T for K affs. I believe K affs should be somewhat within the space of the resolution to provide predictable ground for the neg, once again debate is a game that should be able to be played by both sides. So if you run T as the neg ofc the aff doesn't have to be traditionally topical like a non K aff. But when you run T give me some kind of DA or impact to the loss of reasonable ground by the neg to be able to play the game of debate on an equal ground with the aff. I do not care how awesome you believe your K aff is, the neg should be able to debate too and blindsiding them with something that has nothing to do with the rez is an arg. Be real, you're not going to change the world with your K aff, I will vote for it, but you won't change the world. So the neg should have ground to debate your aff.

Last update September 2023 in an attempt to majorly condense down to what you actually want to know.

Yes email chain (I like Speechdrop or Tabroom Share even better but will defer to what y'all want) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, it's going to be very hard for you.

3) I flow what I hear but I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed.

4) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

5) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. Conditional 2NRs are gross.

6) Flow the debate, not the speech doc.

7) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please.

8) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp. My understanding of T is more "old school" than a lot of the rest of arguments; a T debate that talks a lot about offense/defense and not a lot about interpretations/violations is less likely to be something I comprehend in the way you want.

9) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

10) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

11) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Speed is fine but I will not clear you (see longer discussion in policy below). I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

I do not vote on topicality. I prefer off case arguments and DAs always win over everything on case. I will add debate etiquette into my decisions so shake hands, introduce yourselves, be cordial, and have fun.