I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

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]

My experience:

2013-16: Competitor for Remington High School; involvement in policy and primarily speech-focused IEs

2016-2020: Competitor for Sterling College; involvement in IPDA and speech focused IEs

2018-2020: Assistant coach for Nickerson High School; involvement in policy and IEs

2021: Assistant coach for Ashland Jr/Sr High School; minimal involvement in IEs

2022-23: Head coach at Ashland Jr/Sr High School; involvement in IEs

2023-Present: Head coach at Nickerson High School; involvement in Policy, Congress, and IEs, minimal involvement in BQ and LD

2-Speaker Policy:

Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.

What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.

I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.

New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.

Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.

How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.

How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.

How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think I'm in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(

How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)

When deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer how much impact you and your arguments had on the round then how you sounded as a speaker. Unless you do something really rude. If you are extremely rude to another debater I cannot reward you with a high rank. And your team is probably going to lose the round. I want to see a debate round, not kids getting verbally bullied.

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.