Please don't offer to shake hands with me. I appreciate the gesture of respect - so just smile and say your name/number for me so I'm sure I'm on the right page.

Please speak up!

THS '22

Currently attending Wichita State University where I am kinda sorta on the debate team!

I did debate throughout middle and high school, mainly LD and policy, as well as a few speech events. I understand policy debate well; K debates are still a struggle, but I promise I am learning! LD was fun for me, I enjoy judging it and have a solid understanding of the way things go, but I really appreciate feisty LD debaters :)

Above all: be a good person, don't cheat (clipping, recording w/o consent, etc.), and say good words well!

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

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

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

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

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

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

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

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

CROSS-EX:

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

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

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

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

HARMS:

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

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

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

INHERENCY:

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

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

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

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

SOLVENCY:

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

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

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

ADVANTAGES:

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

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

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

PLAN:

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

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

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

TOPICALITY:

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

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

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

DISADVANTAGES:

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

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

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

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

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

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

COUNTERPLANS:

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

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

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

KRITIKS:

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

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

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

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

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

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

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

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

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.

Coaching: 1977-2023 [Kansas] Valley Center High School, Wichita North High School, Wichita Northwest High School, Maize High School & Campus High School

Paradigm: Pure Policy

Aff has burden of proof and neg presumption, so I will default neg if the aff can't prove their policy is comparatively advantageous. Impact calc is imperative.

DAs: Overviews, solid plan links, and impact calc; straight turns good!

CPs: Legit only if neg can prove the CP is competitive, i.e, mutually exclusive and/or net beneficial

Ks: Not a fan! So generic and boring. I want to hear good clash, not a K which most students don’t comprehend and can’t explain, sheer torture.

T: Don’t waste time on T if the aff is topical. If the case is truly not topical, then T’s a priori, so ensure you defend your interps, standards, and voters cogently and coherently.

Delivery: Lucid, professional, classy, articulate; speed bad=immediate loss.

Integrity: Be humble, kind, and respectful.

As a judge, I value two things highly

One: First and foremost, I see this an exercise in good communication. If you speak so rapidly that I can't follow you, I can't in good conscience give you the win because I don't know understand your argument. Second to that, I don't want you to read me tons of cards. I believe your evidence should support your speech, not be your speech.

Second: Stock issues. These exist for a reason in this event.

In essence, I value traditional, logical, and well-articulated arguments.

I do not prefer K's. There are very few K's that I believe are successful arguments and would need to be very well articulated and sound argumentation.

Do not yell! Passion does not equal louder. Please maintain a reasonable volume.

Judge Paradigm: Justin Ralph

As a former Forensics coach with limited debate experience, my primary focus as a judge revolves around the evaluation of evidence and its direct impact on the overall claim presented in the debate. I value thorough analysis and well-supported arguments.

Evidence Evaluation: I place a significant emphasis on the quality and relevance of the evidence presented in the debate. Debaters should strive to provide well-researched and credible sources to support their positions. Clear explanations of how the evidence relates to the overarching theme or claim will be crucial in my assessment.

Debate Style: I am comfortable with debaters utilizing speed (spreading) if it enhances the depth of their arguments and allows for a more nuanced discussion. However, I also appreciate clarity, and debaters should prioritize maintaining comprehensibility, especially given my background in Forensics.

Argumentation: Debaters are encouraged to showcase their abilities at the highest level, whether that involves a fast-paced delivery or a slower, more deliberate approach. What matters most to me is the effectiveness of the argumentation and the strategic choices made by debaters in advancing their positions.

Decision-Making Criteria: In deciding the winner of the round, I will carefully weigh the strength of the evidence presented, the clarity of argumentation, and the overall impact of the debaters' positions on the resolution. Educational value is essential, and I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful analysis and clash.

Final Note: I am open-minded and adaptable, and I welcome diverse approaches to debate. Students should feel free to showcase their unique styles while ensuring that their arguments are well-grounded and supported by compelling evidence.

Curtis Shephard

Email Chain - cshephard@usd266.com

I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality

It's all about the game and how you play it.
All about control and if you can take it.
All about your debt and if you can pay it.
It's all about pain and who's gonna make it.

You've got your rules and your religion
All designed to keep you safe
But when rules start getting broken
You start questioning your faith
I have a voice that is my savior
Hates to love and loves to hate
I have the voice that has the knowledge
And the power to rule your fate

Um, it's gon' be, what it's gon' be
Five pounds of courage buddy, base tan pants with a gold tee
Ugh, it's a war dance and victory step
Of all stances, a gift and you insist it's my rep

I am cold like December snow
I have carved out this soul made of stone
And I will drag you down and sell you out
Embraced by the darkness, I'm losing the light
Encircled by demons, I fight What have I become, now that I've betrayed
Everyone I've ever loved, I pushed them all away
And I have been a slave to the Judas in my mind
Is there something left for me to save
In the wreckage of my life, my life

The Dr. will see you now

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

I think debate should be an opportunity to put research skills to the test. I highly value good evidence spin and think in many instances teams who tell me what their evidence says wind up better off than teams who just read what the evidence says.

I think the only ideological predisposition that affects me the most is my neg lean on a lot of theory questions. Condo is probably good and certainly doesn't outweigh T but I've recently been finding myself persuaded by condo bad a lot more. Edit: I have oddly enough recently become far more convinced that it's good for the aff to extend and go for condo despite making the switch to 2N. That isn't to say I am easy to win on the argument but rather that I can be persuaded either way. For it to be viable, however, aff teams need to start contextual analysis and interp debating in the 1AR and slow down so I can flow everything.

Evidence quality is something I've noticed decline at a shocking level. No author qualifications, shady websites, poor highlighting to the extent that there's no warrant highlighted, etc. Even though I noted above appreciation for evidence spin, that spin should incorporate indicts to bad evidence from the other team. If they read a card that's tagged, "BBB Passes." and the only words highlighted are "BBB" and "Passes" I feel no reason to consider that card in my decision.

Don't be needlessly mean to your opponents. Being blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic etc. will certainly tank your speaks and probably lead to an L. Making fun of bad evidence does not require attacking the character of who you're debating.

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

Teams should adapt---------------------------X----Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

Counterplans aren't fair--------------------X-----------Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes----------------------X---------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability--------------X-----------------Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------------X-------Not a good argument

Case Debate

Impact turns can be exceptionally fun but often times are full of terrible literature. Teams should point that out.

I think teams are scared to go for turns vs affs that aren't flat out impact turns and I think both evidence wise and strategically it's a good idea to put hefty link turn arguments on case.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does.

Teams often do impact comparison exclusively at the terminal impact level without incorporation of vital solvency deficits implications to that calculus.

DA

There's a lot of focus on reading an unnecessary number of cards in the block on certain arguments. If 1NRs cut UQ cards in half in favor of link cards I think the debate certainly winds up further in your favor.

If you are gonna read 2 minutes of UQ then my smallest request is to make the tags funnier. I'll give extra speaks if you make the worst part of the debate a bit sillier.

Politics is one of my favorite arguments but I think there comes a time when people should recognize that a DA is beyond repair. Sometimes truth can ethos wise outweigh tech in these debates that makes it feel displeasing to vote on a PTX DA.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

The Rider DA can be a lot of fun and holds an interesting implication for affs but I think it's almost always very flawed at an internal link level.

CP

If an aff is really good enough you should be able to answer every counterplan just by winning it's different from the 1AC. Not being able to do that is not the fault of the negative.

Non condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument, not the team so if you list them as a reason to do so in 2AC cross you should have a reason why that's true before I hold the neg to answering it with anything else than "reject the arg, not the team."

Clever PICs can be really fun debates but word PICs can be a little more lifeless than others and less fun to debate and evaluate.

Judge kick is usually my default. It makes since to me that the neg always defends the squo even if they introduce other advocacies because their role is simply to prove that whatever change the aff makes is the wrong one.

K

A lot of my first hand K knowledge is limited to Cap, set col, or Heidegger but I feel comfortable in a decent bit of these debates. I think the more abstract and post modern the K leans the more I find myself feeling confused and I'd hope for more explanation.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

A lot of framework interpretations that don't have an end point that allow the aff to weigh its stuff vs the K seem counterproductive to me. Framework should function not just to the advantage of the K's impact and solvency calculus but should also have relatively clear parameters for what an aff must do to weigh itself. I think usually framework interpretations are better the more simplistic and common they are (the aff should be an object of research that must justify its scholarship is typically a solid interp) Otherwise it ends up too self serving.

The alt should be able to be explained to tangibly do something. Alts that just "refuse" or "reject" something seem counterintuitive to political progress in a lot of ways because I don't think they can ever have an endpoint that solves the Ks impacts.

K Affs

I've only been on the negative in these debates but I don't think I've wound up as opposed to critical affirmatives as my coaches or even partner. There's no doubt that affirmatives that challenge the resolution are important to debate as a whole but since I've spent most of time thinking about neg strategies I think a lot of my views can be filtered through weighing traditional neg offense.

I think affirmatives are always best whenever they take advantage of the 1AC to leverage a counter model of debate that can access some of the negs offense. It's hard to convince me in a competitive setting that procedural fairness is outright bad whenever the affirmative is required to engage in some procedurally fair part of the activity before the 1NC even occurs, that said I think impact turns should be paired with reasons why the affirmatives model can avoid said offense.

Affirmatives really need a clearly defined theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes.

Neg teams in these debates should be more direct and willing to read a lot of off case positions. For one it can be effective against teams who are only ready to answer 2 or 3 off, but also I think it helps get a gage on what the aff actually does and helps point out contradictions in what they advocate for.

Topicality/Procedurals

T is one of the more fun arguments in debate because I think it's good to limit out bad or shady affirmatives in real time.

I feel like Extra and Effects T affs are more common and that's dumb. Aff teams usually just say "because there's extra stuff from the plan you get more DA links." That's ridiculous and neg teams should put a stop to it.

Impact debate on T needs to occur alongside a counter explanation of what the neg interp does to both solve it and create better debate as a whole. It feels like a lot of T debates suffer from serious disconnect.

Most procedural arguments are lost on me as legitimate reasons to vote against an aff team. Procedurals that require unorthodox things of the affirmative usually seem silly to me.

Sneaking in ASPEC is quite ridiculous and I will decrease speaks of any neg team who hides the analytic or sends out everything in the 1NC except for it. If it's short enough that the aff team doesn't notice it I'll guess that's because it's not warranted enough to justify voting negative and the 1AR will get new answers.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one procedural type argument that's of immediate value:

Disclosure is probably one of the most important things about modern debate. I come from a school where my partner and I were the only team consistently debating with a small coaching staff. Despite that, I think I'm opposed to the view that disclosing is even close to bad for smaller programs. I agree a lot with Chris Roberds here, "I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive." Teams should disclose what stuff they read and open source docs on the wiki. If you tell me you open sourced the round I'll bump speaks. All of this comes with some caveats like the neg should ask for disclosure before the round before they make the argument in the 1NC, which requires that both teams come to the room (or zoom) shortly after pairings are released. I think if the aff team flat refuses to disclose anything (on the wiki or preround after being asked) than I can easily be convinced on the theory argument but the the neg did not attempt to get disclosure or if there are a reasonable set of interrupting circumstances for the aff pre round then maybe I will give leeway. Your best bet is to have some sort of physical evidence (ie a screenshot of an email which was not answered or if you ask for disclosure while I am in the room and the aff says no) and contextualize the violation.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.