Istealprep@gmail.com

AND

BabciiDebate@gmail.com

It is pronounced Bab (ki) not Bab (chee).

I debated for Wichita State and JCCC. Currently an assistant coach @ Wichita State.

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will keep a strict flow and decide the debate based on that flow and nothing else.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. You forfeited the right to say that when you disagreed that we are all here playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG evaluating policy proposals. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

TVA's matter a lot to me. I think well deployed TVAs are nearly unbeatable.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence quality tends to matter more in T debates for me than most. Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If you can't win against a 2AC that straight turned a DA then you should lose or put in a 1NC CP that fiats out of the straight turn.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

I understand why we stopped because of Covid, but I miss handshakes between opponents. That being said, don't shake my hand.

yes email chain - babciidebate@gmail.com

judge for mill valley, westwood, and wichita east

TLDR- i debate at wichita state in college and used to debate at jccc, i do mostly policy stuff in college, fine with k's on both the aff and neg

top level

debate is a game and educational activity, it ought to be fair but there are other considerations as well

do what you do best! this is advice for both content and form

arguments need to have a claim and a warrant - this includes evidence - christmas tree highlighting of scary words is not an impact argument

k on the aff

Be related to the topic or don't, just have a solid defense of what you want to defend and why i should vote for it

i am agnostic on what is the best impact for framework or the best way to answer framework. this is not me trying to be tabula rasa, but simply a lack of framework 2nrs in my career and thus a lack of conclusive opinions on the subject. whatever you can explain the best and tell a coherent story with is the one you should go with

method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. you should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text

K on the neg

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech

most teams f/w interps usually aren't mutually exclusive with each other

unless told otherwise i will default to utilitarian calculus - which means the burden is typically on the negative to posit an alterantive view of ethics and impact calculus

Topicality

interp quality obviously matters but only insofar as it is impacted out and compared to other reasons i should value an interp

i usually default to competiting interps as reasonability is often packaged as a reason why limits are bad - you should just make that argument - saying the aff should get a lot of affs to pick from and the neg should just do more research isnt that hard of a sell imo

CP

will default to judge kick unless the 1ar says something about it - the 2ar is not the time to start the judge kick debate

i honestly have no clue how anyone evaluates cp's besides sufficeincy framing and i have yet to hear a alternative way to evalaute them

everything is legit until someone says it isn't in which case it becomes a debate - create competition as you may

DA

1nc's need to be full arguments with uniqueness, link, and impact - if one of these is missing the 2ac has my full authority to say "not an argument im not answering it until it is" and i will allow the 1ar to make as many new arguments as they want against the da

Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is

there is not 'always a risk' - there is 'always a risk' of just about anything thats called randomness

misc

speaker points are my decision and i will not listen to arguments about them

a lot of how i think about debate is influenced by justin stanley, matthew vega, and phil samuels

I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.

I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.

Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.

FOR LD DEBATE:

I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.

I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.

That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.

***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***

FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:

Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.

I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.

Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.

Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.

Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.

Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.

LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.

Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.

Be polite and have fun!

As a policy debate judge, my highest priority is stock issues. They are vital for the affirmative. If any one of Harms, Inherency, A Topical Plan, or Solvency are not there, then I will not vote for the affirmative. I want to be clear that I consider each stock issue to rely on the one before it. I consider advantages to stem from solvency as well. Please arrange your case accordingly.

Regarding Topicality, I prefer to see debates focus that focus more on interpretation and standards than on voters. I always consider topicality to be a voting issue.

I do welcome squirrel cases, but I like to see an affirmative topicality justification in the 1AC.

Please keep speed within reason. If you are reading cards faster than I can get them on the flow, then I will miss them and disregard them. I would much rather see a team speak clearly than quickly.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

Stock issues. T should only be what’s actually off topic. I don’t like Ks unless they’re actually applicable. Academic problems that aren’t likely to be real life issues have no interest for me. I’d rather it be concrete, undeniable, and undeniably important.

I am slightly hard of hearing, so please speak clearly (especially with masks) and with a decent volume. Speeding/spreading means I can’t understand you. If I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

Policy Debate Wichita East 1993-1997

Policy Debate Wichita State 1997-2000

Head Coach Wichita Heights 2002-2005

Head Coach Andover High School 2005-Present

I have judged many debate rounds over the years and honestly I am open to just about any style. I hesitate to call myself tabula rosa as I lean more towards policy maker, but have voted for K's on many occasions. If you are going to run a K, just make sure that you have a good explanation of how it works in the context of the debate. I do think that topicality is important and will absolutely vote on it if it's won in the debate. I am fine with generic positions, DA, CP, or K.

Speed - I don't see has many fast rounds as I used to, but I am generally fine with rapid delivery as long as you are clear. I would like to be on the email chain or in the evidence drop.

Things to avoid in the debate - One major pet peeve of mine is teams who overly use "cut the card here." I understand doing this a time or two during a speech, but if you are doing this for every card, this is a problem. I believe that this one of the key reasons clipping is such a problem.

If your opponent takes time to tell you their pronouns, I expect you to use them.

Feel free to ask many any specific questions that you have. Good luck!

Debate Experience//

• Competitively debated at Hutch High in the champ (DCI) division in the late 90’s

• Competitively debated at K-State on the national circuit in the early 2000’s

Coaching/Judging Experience//

• Coached policy debate at Arizona State while obtaining my masters in critical/women’s rhetoric

• Coached policy debate at K-State as the assistant director

• Coached at McPherson High School, Valley Center, and Nickerson

• Currently the Director of Debate and Forensics at Hutch High

Recent Edit:

E-mail chain: yes please: SalthawkDebateChain@gmail.com, please label the subject line with tournament, team, and round #.

Stylistics Preferences//

I was a traditional policy debater in college who ran lots of counter-plans and K’s. My specialty was language/feminism krytiques, which were popular in my era. We always read a plan, but often conceded the plan caused nuclear war, but argued some form of oppression/morality outweighed. While judging college policy, I tended to judge performance based debates, as well as policy. “Academic” research can come from a variety of spaces. I cannot emphasize enough that I have very few predispositions as to what a “good” debate should look like. However, I am interested in well warranted arguments that justify your approach. So, aff’s can justify why they shouldn’t need to support the res, and neg’s can run cheater counter-plans, so long as you justify your approach with more than repetitive tag lines. Also noteworthy: if you do not argue for a particular paradigm, then I will default to a policy maker who weighs the pros/cons of the affirmative proposal/performance. As for the truth vs tech debate, sigh, I go back and forth. As a communication scholar I genuinely value the truth, but as a techy debater, I appreciate the nuances of line by line and well calculated risks. While it's un-likely you'll win by ballot on a topicality RVI, if you put enough work into it and it's relationship to the rest of the debate, it's entirely possible .

Delivery//

I am not flowing from the speech doc, however, I will use the old school technique of flowing the audible speech, perhaps with two colors of pens. In columns. If you feel I should call for 2 or 3 cards after the debate, you better make sure they are good. You cannot talk too fast for me. Keep in mind, I’m flowing from the speech and not the doc, so clarity is important. I take a good flow, and I expect you to do so as well (unless you make an argument that convinces me otherwise). You only receive credit for arguments found on my flow. If I don't know where you are, or am confused, I will give you non-verbal cues, which requires you to pay attention to me. Clash and signposting is important to me. I am not a huge fan of the approach of reading a 10 card regional overview on each sheet of paper that was pre-prepared and then proceeding to cross apply all your cards underneath on the line by line. However, I am a fan of a short regional overview, followed by a nice healthy line by line debate where you signpost what you are answering, read carded responses, provide analysis, and are critical of the other teams evidence.

K’s//

I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the work to explain it. My familiarity shouldn’t win you the debate. Case specific links (carded or explanations) will get you better speaker points.

Language K’s//

Probably the one thing I have pre-dispositions about. We’re a communication based activity, so it will be hard to convince me that your language/representations don’t matter. It’s also 2020, I expect your evidence/tags/analysis to avoid racialized/sexist/trans-phobic language. Won’t automatically drop you, but I come from a less inclusive era and fought the good fight in debates, so supporting diversity via language/argument choices is important to me.

CP’s//

If you can justify it, do it. I wasn’t above reading a cheater CP as a debater, but I also wasn’t above going for no negative fiat in the 2AR. I have a high familiarity CP theory, but your explanations are still required.

DA’s//

Yep. Extra points if they go to extinction and/or turn back the case. I also love morality/ethics based impacts. Neg’s should be prepped to defend your internal link to nuclear war, and to defend your method of scenario building/representations vs the K. Aff’s should have new uniqueness for your link turn, or a high familiarity with your impact turns, or a K prepped.

Overall//

Debate is an academic testing ground for creativity, so be kind, be clear, and have fun!

Speaker Points For IE Events

Speaking Style

(Stolen from Jaret's paradigm)

Jokes and humor in the round is always great.

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤20 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, false evidence, etc.

•22 - You made multiple technical errors in the activity. At the low end, Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•23 - You did well in your activity. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•24 - Wow, good speaking skills. You were clear the whole time, and powered through mistakes clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•25 - Nearly perfect!!!

Jaret Jarmer-
Put me in the email chain: jaret.jarmer00@gmail.com or speech drop either is okay.

Please share using a word doc. it's not the end of the world if it is a PDF, but I really prefer a word doc

TLDR: I try to be as Tab as possible. Everything is up for debate. Run what you want. I'm cool with 9 off and case or 1 off K. If it's a K aff, just tell me what my ballot does, and win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

Debate Experience:

Largest Debate Influence: Evan Manning

Policy: I debated for three years at Eisenhower High School 2016-2019 China, Education, and Immigration. Primarily in DCI and TOC-circuit tournaments. I ran pretty much everything from reading the K of politics as a 2A to Sparking myself. Name it, I have probably done it, so do what you want. Spark and Empire were my favorites, and I ran them both on the Aff and Neg. If you have a question about how I feel about an argument, ask me about it before the round.

PF: I debated PF for two years. I read pretty much everything I ran in policy. I got away with Debate is Bad and Spark more times than I should have. Just go for what you want. If it's not considered traditional, then win it's better than your opponent's vision of debate, and you will probably get what you want.

My opinions

Speed is fine

1. Tech over Truth

2. I will never refuse to listen to an argument or vote you down because of my personal opinions about an argument.

3. K’s- Are fine; that being said, please explain what my ballot does when I vote for the K. I find it very hard to vote for a K when I don’t know what my ballot means. I ran Hardt and Negri Empire, so past that, don't expect me to know your lit at all. Also, I think it is especially important to be clear on tags here - big words, difficult concepts. (K affs with or without a plan text are fine). The stronger the link, the better..... Links of omissions aren't the best, I think more teams should make the argument that speeches are time-limited.

4. Theory- I like theory debates. That being said, zooming through generic pre-written blocks without adapting them to how they apply to this specific round probably isn't the best strat. I feel like most theory debates don't have much direct clash. For me to vote on this, let me know what my ballot does. Win your vision of debate is better than your opponents.

5. DA – I think Specific links are better than generic links. This is very true when it comes to the PTX disad of the year. Impact turning disads is a fun strat. I don't see that much anymore.

4. CP’s- I love all the cheating counterplans you can think of.... Consult, Delay, etc... but an aff can absolutely win this is cheating.

5. T- If you’re going to go for T, go for T. Impacts of violating topicality can be very persuasive. T isn't an RVI, but please don't cold concede this and make me vote on it.

6. Impact Turns- Impact Turns are the best; please impact turn. I'd love to judge a good spark debate. Sparking was my pastime.

K Aff Stuff

Top Level Things

K Affs with or without a plan text are cool. I ran a K aff with a plan text that was a meta kritik. Just because something is my personal opinion on how an argument should function doesn’t mean I’m going to default to it. Tell me how to vote and what the world of debate looks like post my ballot. I think debate is a game, but the cool thing about this game is we get to debate what the rules are. The only literature I’m familiar with is Hardt and Negri, and Judith Butler. I ran Empire on the Neg most of the time and ran Butler on the Aff and the Neg. Outside of that, assume I have never heard of your literature before. So, zooming through the thesis of your K probably isn’t going to help you.

K Aff V Framework.

I prefer a K aff to have some connection with the topic. That being said, I’ll still vote for one that doesn’t. I just feel like the Neg is going to much easier time winning framework and abuse claims. I think teams should spend some time on real-world impacts to violating topicality. In my personal opinion, I don’t feel like reading framework is equal to genocide or violent; in fact, I think more teams should leverage real-world impacts to violating limits or topicality in general against the impacts of the Aff.

K V K

I’m down with K v K debate. They probably should clash. It was my default when I was debating a K aff. In the end, I need to know what my ballot does. I don’t feel like I have a preference on a response to a K Aff. Do what you're more comfortable with.

Speaker Points

(If I'm Judging IE events and the scale is out of 25, I will use this scale and subtract 5)

Copy and Paste from Austin's Paradigm

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments effectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

My Opinions

Please be clear!!! Consider me a (f)lay judge.

1. Tech over Truth

2. I will never refuse to listen to an argument or vote you down because of my personal opinions about an argument.

3. K’s- I am not read on the literature of K theory.

4. DA – I think specific links are better than generic links.

5. T- If you’re going to go for T go for T.

Speaker Points

(If I'm Judging IE events and the scale is out of 25, I will use this scale and subtract 5)

Copy and Paste from Austin's Paradigm

Speaking Style

Jokes and humor in the debate round is always great. The more fun the round, the higher speaker points you typically get. Keep the atmosphere positive.

Good CX = Good speaks.

(This scale is dependent on debate division.)

Speaker points for me tend to range around the following:

•≤25.0 - You messed up and yelled at someone, had a physical altercation, severe card clipping, false evidence, abused prep severely, etc.

•25.1-27.5 - You made multiple technical errors in the debate. At the low end, you might have stole some prep, clipped a card, et cetera. Your speaking was average to not clear across the board.

•27.6-28.9 - You did well in the debate. This is average, and you may have made minor errors with a good strategy. Speaking was clear the vast majority of the time, and you were courteous.

•29.0-29.8 - Wow, good debating. You were clear the whole time, and powered through the other teams' arguments effectively and clearly. Clear speaking the whole time, and your strategy had near-surgical precision.

•29.9-30.0 - Nearly perfect!!!

I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

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.

Hello, my name is Rylee Lopez and I am a gradated senior who has done debate and forensics for 2 years through the state and national tournament, so I understand the format of debate and have past experience judging as well.

 Feel free to speak fast, I can understand. I vote on who has the biggest impacts in the round and who is able to explain their position better. I will vote on theory, topicality and weird obscure arguments if they are again complete, have an impact/voter. 

Aff- Make sure you clearly state your stock issues, if you want to run a K-AFF or performative Aff as well that is ok.

Neg- DA,CP, Case, T, K's, Theory, all is fine as long as you explain it thoroughly 

 

I will vote against you if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Background: I debated four years at Salina South High School (2017-21). I was also the 5A 2-speak state champion in 2021 on the prison reform topic. I currently debate in college at Kansas Wesleyan University (parli + LD), and I had a brief stint at Yale. I have assistant coached at Salina South and head coached at Sacred Heart high school.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over truth. I think debate is a game, whoever plays it best wins my ballot. With this, I have often voted against good plans or good counterplans that I think are good ideas, because they weren't argued correctly. I try to keep my own personal biases (in any way) out of the debate round. Do not change how you debate to adapt to me; I want to see how you debate at what you believe is your best. I'm comfortable with any speed from conversational to rapid spreading. Speech drop > Email chains. ****I am of the belief that all on case and off case arguments need to be read in the 1NC. Also no new in the 2NC. I will not vote you down because of this, but I will not be happy.

Topic Specific: This year, I have been judging and coaching on the 4A and 3-2-1 A circuit. I am not a big fan of "soft left" impacts which are huge on this topic, so it will be much easier for me to vote on high magnitude impacts (yes, I am an unironic nuke war impact enjoyer).

Topicality: I believe it is an a priori and will judge it first before examining the case. I judge topicality on whether you can prove specific in-round abuse and if it sets a precedent for bad debating. I have enjoyed debating and coaching topicality, so please do not be afraid to run it!

Counterplans: I believe every counterplan has to have a net benefit, and I don’t care about whether it’s topical or not. I don't think conditionality is abusive in most cases, but I can be convinced with a really good condo bad shell.

Kritiks: I am most comfortable with Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, Queerness, and Anti-blackness. Anything further will probably require some explanation. Must have Framework to tell me how to weigh the K vs Case.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.

If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

I was a high school debater and current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience, and I am always up to date on current topics. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans.

I am a games player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book. Victory at all costs is my motto when it comes to debate.

I love aggressive rounds. Every argument is on the table as long as you can defend it.

I would prefer to see your speeches in some way to judge the flow. I would like to have a roadmap if you want me to consider it in the best possible way.

Email: jogle@goddardusd.com

Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.

Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.

Policy:

General--

I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.

I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.

Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.

If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.

I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.

I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.

I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.

Kritik--

More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.

Topicality--

I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.

DA--

Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.

Speak guuuuuud.

But seriously, I'm a forensics coach first, so I wanna hear your fancy speaker skills at a REASONABLE pace!
I like to flow arguments on a spreadsheet. That means I want to hear you give CLEAR tags when you move to a new piece of evidence. And those tags need to be ACCURATE (i.e. NO powertagging)!

Also... CLASH!!! Answer the arguments! If you're the 1NC, and you give me T and 2 DAs but don't at least ADDRESS any of their On-Case, I'm not gonna be a happy judge. Same on the 2AC when you want to extend your On-Case. ADDRESS their Off-Case! And EXPLAIN your cards!
(e.g. "So judge, in a nutshell this is how their plan's solvency ultimately makes climate change worse for us all...">

Likewise, Give. Me. Roadmaps. I want to know WHERE you're going with the arguments, and SIGNPOST when you move from point to point (e.g. "Now let's address their Solvency..." "Okay, moving on to the Link in the BioTerrorism DA...") Letting me know WHERE your argument is on the flow is ESSENTIAL! If I have to look all over the place to guess where you are on the flow, then I'm missing the argument that you're making.

In rebuttals, I'm all about the Impact Calc. GET OFF THE CARDS. Let me hear your analysis of your argument. If you're still reading new evidence after the 2NC, you'd better have an awfully good reason for it. And definitely don't ignore the impact calc entirely. Talk to me!
And honestly, you don't need to wait until rebuttals to start your Impact Calc. Explain how your cards and your arguments defeat theirs in the constructives!

Finally, I want the debate round to be FUN. I would like to come away from that round with stories about how clever your argument was or how creative your analysis was.

Tell some jokes.
Drop some geeky, pop culture references.
Make me laugh.
Make me clap.
Give me a reason to look forward to judging another round.

Asst. Debate coach 6 years, Debate in High School, Head Forensics Coach 6 years. Theatre Teacher

The biggest thing I look for in a debate is clear and precise speech. I am ok with spreading as long as you can annunciate every word and make sure that your speech is understandable.

Areas that I tend to give the most weight are as follows:

Solvency

Topicality

Inherency

I will flow throughout. The biggest thing I do not like in a debate is if it get's too far off topic and the plan is not debated at all or touched on very little.

To me debate is about being able to know what you are talking about and having clear answers and to have facts available at the tip of your tongue. It is not about reading. Know what you're talking about and you will be fine with me.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.