I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.

Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).

I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.

As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.

If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.

AFFILIATIONS:

Coach at Kansas City Piper (Kansas)

Let me start this by saying that I kind of hate paradigms. I actively try not to have one. That said, certain preferences are inevitable despite my best efforts, so here we go...

I'm a coach. This is an educational activity above everything else. That's important to me. I will naturally vote for the team that does the work in the round. In the end, my entire philosophy revolves around your work. Pick a position and advocate for it with whatever skills you have. It's not my job to tell you what those skills are or should be.

I'll vote truth over tech every time. Your execution of technicalities won't make up for fallacious argumentation. I really crave clash in a round where we really examine what is at the core of our understanding. That said, I do love pretty tech. Feel free to be clever, but be aware that clever is not the same thing as cute.

I prefer communication over speed. At least go slower on your tags and analysis. On this vein, you are responsible for the words that come out of your mouth. Speech is always an act of advocacy.

I wish I could tell you preferences about CPs, Ks, and what the debate space means, but the truth of it is that I will vote how you tell me to. Provide me a meaningful framework (and you know... tell me why it's meaningful) and actual clash, and I'll follow along.

I'm an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I also debated in high school a million years ago.

Don't speak super fast. I need to be able to understand what you are saying.

I will be flowing the debate. I should see you flowing the debate as well.

Please label ALL off-case arguments in the 1NC. It's confusing and bothersome to me if you don't.

I don't like disclosure debates- you should always disclose before the round starts unless breaking new.

CPs and DAs are fine- the links should be clear.

I usually don't vote on T.

Framework- Tell me why I should frame the debate the way you tell me to.

K- I am okay with you running one as long as it's explained really well.

Dropped arguments in the round- please try not to do this.

Avoid saying the other teams arguments are "abusive".

I value quality over quantity. Please don't read cards the whole time!

If you have questions, please ask!

Please add me to the email chain: sgoddardoe@olatheschools.org

I have coached for a few years and am always learning. Don't assume I know anything but I will listen to and entertain almost everything.

Experience:

Former Policy Debater, Shawnee Mission East

Former University of Kansas Mock Trial Competitor

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Shawnee Mission East

Former Policy and Mock Trial Coach, Blue Valley Northwest

Former Policy, LD, PF and Mock Trial Coach, Olathe North

Former Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Louisburg

Current Policy, LD, and PF Coach, Piper

POLICY

Style Preferences:

I have no speed preferences, debate to the style you are best at. I have heard only a few people too fast for me to understand, but if you choose to spread and you are unclear I will stop flowing.

A few tips to prevent this from happening:

Slowing down on tags, dates, authors, important lines in evidence and important analysis. Higher speed is more appropriate for cards and less so for analysis and theory. If you speed through your 8 one-line points on condo I probably won't get them all (this also happens a lot on perm theory). If it's super important it's worth slowing down. It is you and your partner's responsibility to make sure I am following what's happening. If you're stumbling, slow down and then speed back up when you're back on track instead of trying to push through, which just makes everything messy.

Open CX, flashing, off-time roadmaps (this is much prefered for me to flow) are all fine if both teams are ok with it.

There is a line you can cross of disrespect. What you say and how you say it matters. Although I do not consider this a voting issue unless the other teams argues that it should be, it's harder for me to vote for you if I think you're a jerk. Wit is great, rudeness is not.

Argumentation Preferences for Policy:

I'm fine with any and all forms of argumentation. Just justify why I should vote on it. Be the better debaters in the round and you will win. I vote on what I hear in the round and what is persuasive. Substance is much more important than style.

I generally default policy maker and will need offense to vote, however, if you argue framework and win it I am happy to change the roll of the ballot. Please do not leave it up to me what impacts are most important, if you don't weigh the round for me it is at your own peril.

K debate is fine, but do not assume I have read the philosopher/theorist you are using in depth. It's your responsibility to explain the theory to me. I am much more persuaded by alts that solve the K or have real world impacts.

CP debate is fine, topical CPs are a very very hard sell for me, but if the other team doesn't tell me it's abusive and should be rejected or does not effectively answer Topical CPs good theory I will still vote for it. Generally advocating for the CP is severance and abusive (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise), but again I need to hear the argument and be told it's a voting issue to vote on it.

I generally view T as an abuse check. If there's no in-round abuse I will rarely vote on it, however if it's answered poorly I'll vote on the better augmentation. Again if you argue that I should change my evaluation to competing interp, etc. and win that argument I will vote accordingly.

Realistic impacts are more effective. I don't mind long chain link stories to get there as long as they are well explained.

New in the 2 is only abusive if teams are spreading

I've tried to cover everything here, but if there is something else you would like to know or need clarification please ask before the round.

LD

Please don't lose focus of the round being about a position on a moral issue. While policy and realistic results of a moral position are important for showing the impact of the value, this is not a policy round. Please choose a value and criterion that you can explain and that work well with your contentions.

The line by line argumentation is important, but don't get so caught up in it that you lose sight of your overriding position. One dropped point won't lose you the round if you access the value the best.

I don't need you to win the value to win the round, but you do need to access the winning value best to win the round.

Please please please engage with the other team's arguments. Don't just say it didn't make sense or didn't apply or that your previous card answers it. Explain why what they say is incorrect. Substance is much more important than style.

PF

You need to have a warrant that supports your claims effectively. Pretty talking will not be enough to win my ballot. The team that best utilizes empirical examples, logic, and (most effectively) evidence to support their claims is typically the winner. At the same time, reading a bunch of cards and providing no analysis will also not serve you well. I'm not a huge fan of emotional personal examples, because they cannot be verified they feel manipulative so I would avoid them.

In my experience sometimes PF rounds get a little snarky. There is a line, and like I said above your demeanor is not a determining factor unless the other team argues that it should be and justifies why you should lose the round over it. But because I am a person, it's hard for me to vote for you if you're a jerk. Wit is appreciated, rudeness is not.

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]

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

AFFILIATIONS:
Current Director of Debate and Forensics (JC Harmon High School - Kansas City, Kansas)

(DEBATE - Kansas City)

(NSDA - East Kansas)

Yes, email chain - kevinjaykinsella@gmail.com

Yes, you may shake my hand. Shaking hands and introducing oneself is a cultural norm that I value.

PHILOSOPHY:

I do not get "lost in the sauce" in regard to technicalities in debate. However, if I comment "lost in the sauce" on your ballot, then you probably lost. Debate is a game of chess, in which teammates are setting up his/her/their partner for the next move. I was raised in a stock issue style debate mentality. Through the years and moving from and participating in more traditional, suburban debate to more progressive, urban debate, I am more flexible to all styles. I often find that I make my decision during Cross-Examination (CX). Anyone can read files that someone from the University of Michigan wrote and put in DropBox. Trust me. I have read all the files that you will run unless you wrote them yourself. You have to bob and weave with the flow of the debate. I ultimately reward whichever team convinces me that they have the better argument (sound simple, eh?).

AGRESSIVENESS:

I love when teams are aggressive, not rude, but aggressive. I often find that whichever team is able to control the narrative of the debate, is often crowned the victor.

SPEED:

I love a high rate of speed. However, if you are not comfortable or confident in your ability to spread, then don't.

EVIDENCE:

I value reputable and recent evidence. If you use some trash source, I will judge you (that's my job). I also believe that it is highly important that you promote your evidence and chastise your opponents. I am a voracious reader of the news. Impress me with your knowledge of how the current topic applies to today, not whenever someone from Northwestern cut this card a year ago from a source that is several years old.

KRITIKAL DEBATE:

I am a fan of K debate. I am an urban debate coach, so K and performance debate is what we are all about. However, K arguments are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams. If you run a "K" because your argument is weak or you are unprepared, it is painfully obvious. The "K" that you run must have some reason that it is being run for this particular debate. If it is not relevant to the debate at hand, then do not run it. Many teams try to run a "K' (especially one that they deem as controversial and outside mainstream thought) in an effort to shock a judge and hide a weak and unprepared argument.

COUNTER PLAN:

I am a big fan of Counter Plans. However, CPs are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

Experienced former competitor and coach in debate and forensics. While my experience is primarily in forensics, as a policy debate judge I’m familiar with and open to all types of arguments (disads, counterplans, critiques, etc.). I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, in that I will vote on any argument to decide a round assuming the teams have framed it as a primary voting issue. That being said, I rarely vote on procedural arguments like topicality. When it comes to speed reading I can’t keep up like I used to. It’s ok to read fast, but try to keep it around a 7/10 so I can keep up.

jessealankc@gmail.com

Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 2 years running.

Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.

6 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.

https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairmount_college_of_liberal_arts_and_sciences/elliott/2012/Student_Organizations/Debate_home.php <if you're interested in joining debate in college, check us out!>

Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.

Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.

email: Kaydperd@gmail.com

Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

About me: I debated for 3 years at Mill Valley (2015-2018).

Please include me on the email chain: lauren.rothgeb@yahoo.com

Top Level:

Tech > truth, but I still like to see warrants of arguments extended and explained. I won't evaluate anything outside of the debate round.

Please remember that, although it's ok to get passionate during a round, a debate never warrants being mean. Be kind and polite towards your competitors. I take this seriously – you will lose speaker points if you are rude to others.

Delivery:

With things being online, I will need you to slow down. If there are technical difficulties with the audio that impede my ability to understand your argument, I will let you know. In general, I'll need you to slow down with more technical arguments. In the end, I believe debate is a performative activity at its core and should be treated as such. In addition, I prefer to see a few really well developed arguments rather than a flurry of barely supported arguments that simply serve to bombard the opposition. Build your argument strategically and deliver it in a performative fashion – don't let speed or a need for as many arguments as possible get in the way of that.

T:

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not the biggest fan of reasonability. I'm not super familiar with this year's resolution, so please make sure to keep your flow clean, to explain your impacts, and to be clear on what your interp includes or excludes and why that is a good thing.

Performance-based:

I'm not the most familiar with these args, but absolutely feel free to run one if you want. Just make sure to walk me through what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective elsewhere.

CPs:

Make sure if you run these that they are specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive.

K:

I am rather unfamiliar with this arena of debate, but if you enjoy this approach I would love to see it. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. Be prepared to allot more time explaining your arg to me.

DAs:

Love these. The most important thing to me in a good DA is a strong link – really sell it to me.

Framework:

Make sure you explain specifically what the framework does to the debate round.

General stuff:

It's been a little while since I've been in a debate. I love to see all the different fun things you can introduce in a debate round, but just make sure you are explaining everything (especially the more technical things) clearly and concisely. This means slowing down and creating a story that is compelling.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and have fun!

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

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.

Blue Valley West Assistant Debate Coach

Email chain: tanmansmith5@gmail.com

If you have any questions before or after the round you can email or just ask me!

Big Picture:

I've had quite a bit of experience with debate over the years so I'm cool with whatever you want to throw out. I have more experience with some arguments than others (see below) but am willing to vote on just about anything. The only thing I will not vote on is things that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Other than that do whatever you want. When I debated I tended to be more tech>truth but I can be convinced otherwise if you warrant it out. Be kind to everyone and you will be just fine.

Also please drop arguments as the round goes on. The 2NR should pick one (or maybe 2 at most) arguments to go for. What those arguments are are completely up to you.

Delivery:

Speed is great and I loved going fast when I debated. If you could slow down on tags, theory, analytics, and a bit for rebuttals I would appreciate it. I would also love the speech doc if you are going to go fast.

Framing:

I will vote how you tell me to. Prove why your framing is better for debate and warrant out why your model is better. I'm a big believer in being told why voting a specific way is good for not just debate but for how we look at the world outside of debate. Prove why your way of thinking is better and I'll probably vote for you.

DAs:

I prefer specific links but I also get that sometimes you just need a bad politics DA. This is where I've got the most experience so read as many as you want. If I am going to vote on a DA though make sure it either outweighs or turns the case.

CPs:

These are great so read them. I love Advantage CPs in conjunction with a DA but read whatever you want. Condo is always up for debate but I tend to think that condo is good unless proven otherwise. Process CPs are fine unless you convince me otherwise. Consult and CPs like that are probably cheating unless you have some really good theory.

T:

I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced of reasonability. Maybe slow down a bit for T in the rebuttals but I am receptive to T if you want to run it.

K/K Affs:

I have run Cap K and am familiar with the more generic Ks (Cap, Security, Militarism, Imperialism, etc.). I will vote on any K but assume if it is not one of the above mentioned you need to do some more explaining. I will also vote for K affs although I also don't have a lot of experience in that regard.

Random Notes:

For some reason I have spent a lot of my debate career running SPARK so I am probably about as receptive to SPARK as any judge you will ever find.

Debate is an activity that should be fun so if you have an argument that will make the round fun/more entertaining I would be excited to hear it.

Final Note — If you tell me a joke before the round I'll give you a small boost in your speaker points. Like I said, debate should be fun and I like rewarding people for reading my paradigm!

Employment: 7 years as an attorney and 7 years as an assistant debate and forensics judge.

Experience: 2 years high school debate, 1 semester college debate at KU, over 10 years of judging including judging policy at EKNSDA and KCKNCFL and judging PFD at NSDA and NCFL, including PFD finals at NCFL 2019.

Arg Prefs:

Topicality is rarely an acceptable argument, unless in extreme cases. When it is run, it should be at the top of the flow and is an a priori issue for me.

Generic disads are always acceptable. Just don't expect them to be super important to my flow if the impacts are outrageous or the link story is weak. Regardless, if they are on the flow, aff must respond.

Topical counterplans are almost never acceptable to me, but if you can make an argument why it would be necessary in this round, tell me.

Open to any K, just make sure you know the material. Misrepresentations of the philosophy presented in the cards, or cards that don't actually make or support the argument made by the neg team will be discounted.

Big impacts are disfavored but not terminal to an arg. They simply don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Give me voters! Tell me why to vote on any argument, weigh it against other arguments in the round, and do the work for me. Leave as little as possible up to my discretion/analysis so that you remain in as much control of the round as possible.

While I will not do a team's work for them on arguments, if a team misrepresents what a card actually says, the persuasive power of that argument is heavily discounted. The other team still needs to challenge the argument, but the misrepresented argument will not weigh heavily in the round.

Style Prefs:

Speed is fine, provided there is competent analysis and your enunciation is clear. Speed does not work for me if your enunciation/volume is poor, or if you are just burning through cards without considering what the cards are actually saying/doing any analysis.

On-case in the two is fine with me, though I would like a preview of it in the 1N.

Give me more detailed roadmaps than "everything on the flow."

I am a judge that only watches a few rounds of debate per year.

As a layjudge, an off time roadmap and clear sign posting is very helpful.

Rate of delivery can be rapid as long as there is articulation and clear points.

Several arguments will help win a round, but not without a firm connection to the case.

Communication is slightly more important than resolution of issues. I need to be able to follow the arguments and match them to the case in order for me to vote on the information presented.

I’m not fond of spending a lot of time on topicality arguments but if one is presented it needs to be defended.

Counterplans need to have a clear advantage over the aff and not contradict other neg arguments.

Generic disadvantages are fine as long as they are tied back to the original case.

Like other types of evidence, kritiks need clear links. Extended argument on the theory of debate detracts from having an actual debate.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Impact calculus is very important but don't forget the links. For example, how should I weigh solvency deficits and links ? In my mind, the lower the risk of the link, the lower the risk of the impact.

Offense-defense: this is the second most important issue. Realize that winning a bunch of defensive arguments will most likely make it hard to win if your opponent has an offense against you.

Nexus question: what is the most important thing to evaluate a debate. You don't have to clearly flag this in the 1 AR for me, but I should at least see the inkling of the doors to analysis you are going to blow up in the 2 AR.

1 ARs and 2 NRs if you could clean things up for me, it would be so much appreciated. Labeling groups of arguments helps me know what you are extending or responding to.

Prep time starts when cross x ends. Please don't try to steal prep time.

If the aff is going for theory against the neg like process counter plans bad, they should know I have a high threshold for rejecting the team and not the argument. I think the 2AR has to provide examples of arguments they would not have been able to run or examples of in-round abuse. This is not impossible. It just requires some thought on your part going into the 2 nc and 2 nr as to what kind of topic-specific education you think is lost or round advantages the neg procures. Against topicality try to use offensive reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. I may have trouble voting on reasonability unless you can articulate what the vagueness of the resolution is this year and what might be considered reasonbly topical or untopical.

arontrujillo@gmail.com

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

Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.***

If you read nothing else in this paradigm statement, read this: I reserve the right to vote down rude debaters and performers, based on principle alone. The world has enough anger; I won't participate in meanness. Not everything has to be sunshine and butterflies (I can be prickly, myself), but unkindness is a deal-breaker.

ALL DEBATE EVENTS: I don't come down with a hard line on tech vs truth, but in general, I tend to value truth over tech. That's not a popular position, I know. But empty sophistry is a problem in our community, y'all. Still, each round kind of shapes itself differently, and sometimes technical play matters more. This is good analysis of why I'm not tech over truth (https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/tech-and-truth-how-judges-are-ruining-debate), while paying careful attention to separate my opinions from the actual debate. But if an argument is weak, I'm under no obligation to accept it. Is that judge intervention? Then it is judge intervention. I'm your audience. I'm going to vote for somebody. Come win me.

POLICY DEBATE: I'm a current head coach, but I'm behind on some technical play and I may get lost if you get into the weird stuff. Still, I’ll try!

Having learned the game of debate before the ubiquity of the internet, I’m a classic (vintage?) example of a stock issues judge who likes fundamentally strong debate and who tends to dislike Kritikal debate because of the way it pressures the judge into unfair positions between competing social ills. Run them if you want and I'll make my best judgment, but if you put me in an untenable position of destroying the earth or ruining the humanity that's left, I won't like it. But even though I can flow rounds, weigh impacts, and know the difference between my aff and a perm, I firmly believe that speech skills actually matter-- stand up straight and make eye contact. Speak to the judge in the back of the room, not the electrons zipping across your screen.

I pine for the halcyon days of outline-structured arguments, numbered responses, and roadmaps that sounded something like “Disad #1, Topicality, Disad #2, then Case-in-order”.

It is not abusive to run new arguments in either second constructive; constructives are for constructing arguments; that is why they are called "constructive" speeches. "No New in the Two" is for the weak.

Paperless debate should make debate rounds faster and more efficient, not slow them down because we forgot to do the upload or sprawl with "did you get it?" email chain lags. If you're going to drag this round out for electronic reasons, keep your prep time running. It's not a voting issue, of course. But we all have a duty to keep the tournament moving. Make policy ninety-minutes again!

I'm not convinced that "stealing prep" is actually a thing. Get up there and start speaking; they don't steal prep if you're talking.

Counterplans must be non-topical, otherwise both teams are affirming the resolution and both teams want me to vote Aff. "If the world is against non-topical-only Counterplans, then I am against the world!" --St. Athanasius of Alexandria (attributed)

I am impressed when people seem to actually know their pre-prepared blocks, and when it seems like they've thought about this argument at least once before they're standing up to read at me. It's great when people understand the links and how to tell its story. It's less impressive if you grab the Generic DA team block and read it without knowing what you're reading.

L-D: I'm not exactly a lay judge in LD, but I won't be insulted if you treat me that way. I definitely skew trad over prog LD. I'm very interested in how your Value will inform the rest of your case. Is it a recurring value that informs your position, or is it some noble idea that really doesn't translate into the rest of your argumentation? Debaters that claim a value/criterion and then ignore it for the rest of the debate don't tend to do well with me.

PFD: Most of the policy stuff applies here, but adapt for PF. That said, I quite dislike the Policy-ization of PF. This event was created to be different from Policy, not a lesser version of it. Discuss ideas and use evidence well, but please don't try to speed spread me and please don't try to strong arm your opponents. It's not that I don't believe in PF, but it's that I don't believe I want to work that hard as a PF judge.

Congress: Do people read Congress paradigms? Hi, Congressperson! Don't be afraid to break script to talk to your chamber rather than just reading at them; a Congress of competing oratories isn't really debate. Also, walk that fine line between being fun and being serious. Let's both enjoy our time in the Congress room! I promise that I'll take my job as a judge seriously if you take your role as a Congress debater seriously. But if you're not serious about doing a good job, I don't feel like I need to reciprocate with a seriously good score. I love this event. Let's be good for each other in it.

Other hills on which I will die: Jokes don't really work in debate rounds; two slices of mediocre pizza and some water is not worth five dollars; signposting is the difference between an average debater and a good one. In Policy Debate, open Cross-Ex insults your partner. No one wants to shake your hand. Tabula Rasa is a unicorn. Medals should have ribbons. Hospitality rooms should have soda. Every debater should also do forensics.

Be nice to each other. Speak louder. And trust me on the sunscreen.

jwalberg@sjakeepingfaith.org

***This is the sunscreen joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI