Lansing Individual Events Invitational
2024 — Lansing, KS/US
Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideJUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.
Any debater may look at this sheet prior to beginning each debate round.
JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET
Name Mark Bergmann
City Fort Scott State KS
School Letter Judge
Community Judge
School Number Judge
1) Did you debate in high school? Yes No
Number of years 0
2) Did you debate in college? Yes No
Number of years 0
3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0
4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 2
5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: National Qualifiers
6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:
C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?
a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.
b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.
c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.
B II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?
a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)
b. Stock issues emphasis
c. Policy maker emphasis
d. Hypothesis testing emphasis
e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)
f. Other
C III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?
a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.
b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.
c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.
d. Very rapid delivery preferred.
e. No preference regarding speed.
B IV. Counterplans are:
a. Never acceptable
b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.
c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.
d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.
B V. Topicality is:
a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.
b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.
c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.
d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.
A VI. I find generic disadvantages:
a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.
b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.
c. Generally acceptable.
B VII. I find kritiks:
a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.
b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.
c. Generally acceptable.
\I am a former 4 year debater from Olathe Northwest.
I'm a policymaker judge, if the affirmative does not successfully defend against the impacts proposed by the negative then I simply cannot vote in favor of the plan. This can be accomplished by attacking the stock issues of the plan, or a good DA and/or CP.
Kritiks are not my favorite arguments by a long shot, but, I do evaluate them in a decision, and overall I default to impacts so I'm not going to get angry if I see one, just don't abuse it, and have it make sense.
I like slow flow rounds, and do not like spreading or speeding. If you go a bit faster than the average debater then I will most likely be able to understand you, but more than that is unnecessary.
How to win as aff with me as your judge: Make sure your advantages link to your solvency, defend Solvency, Inherency, and Topicallity with your life, and answer DAs, CPs, and Ks.
I love to watch clash, don't just ignore your opponent's arguments.
On a personal note, just don't be rude? I want to be able to evaluate a round without bias, but if one team is being unnecessarily aggressive or condescending then I'm going to be biased towards the other team, which is something I don't want to have happen. Also, if you personally insult or are in any way discriminatory against another team then I will feel no remorse in siding against you, this activity should be kept cordial and should be open to everyone, not just people you decide should be allowed to compete.
Generally i'm Tabula Rasa, but will default to a policymaker who values stocks if I'm not told how I should evaluate the round.
Lansing '22
KU '26
please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com
pronouns: he/him
TL;DR:
good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k
ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k
(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. I am becoming more comfortable as I judge more rounds, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)
Intellectual Property specific:
A lot of this topic can be pretty jargony, so try to keep it understandable and accessible for everyone in the round. Great that you understand it, but if you are not able to explain it to the other team or the judge that is not ideal. It is not very great for education/competition if you are winning simply because the other team does not know what you are talking about.
General Thoughts:
tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false
depth > breadth
in depth off case > more silly off case arguments
specific links > vague links
impact calc >>>
judge instruction/signposting >>>
be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone
Argument Preferences:
Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out. When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions about my argument preferences, though, feel free to clarify before the round. I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.
Speed:
Speed is good, but make sure it is clear. If I did not catch the argument because you spread through your pre-written analytics, then it will probably not be on my flow or on my ballot. If you want to ensure that I catch it make sure to slow down a little or really signpost and draw attention to it.
Also, if you are going to read something that is not on the doc maybe slow down a little to give time to pick up what you are putting down. I think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then the arguments are probably not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.
..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother
Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net,
I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.
Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.
I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.
Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:
- The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
- Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
- Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
- This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
- We are in an election year. One of the most important things that young people can do is read about and learn about the election. IPR links are not very good, but if you think about the way some of these plans would be exploited by one party or the other in other ways, I can easily be convinced that elections is a viable disadvantage.
LHS '23
KU '27
For email chain: michaelim2005@gmail.com
Policy General
Debate is a game that can be more than a game, and the ballot is a tool that can be more than signifying win/loss
Disclosure is good (and something that everyone should be doing), and file share is even better (something that everyone should also be doing)
IMPORTANT: Any amount of intended bigotry will result in 0 speaker points and an immediate L, so don't be a terrible person and we won't have a problem
PLEASE ask questions. If you don't understand what my paradigm is talking about, ask me before round
Speed is only a problem once it becomes unreasonable for your opponent(s) to compete. For me, don't worry about going too fast--that doesn't mean you should go as fast as possible--signposting is important
don't be a terrible person
Theory
I love theory and will weigh it first. That doesn't mean that that will be an easy win. Voters need to be extended and are always a reason to reject the arg (only exception is condo)
condo is the only argument I would consider a viable theory 2ar
T
T is very important and I am easily swayed by standards debate. If I am not directed, I'll default to competing interps and weigh the debate from there
Reasonability isn't being reasonably topical. Reasonability is that the aff causes a reasonable amount of abuse
T is generally not an rvi
DA
I'm chill with linear da's or 2 card da's
DO IMPACT CALC & TURNS--that includes how the internal link chain should factor in impact calc
Brevity is still good and doesn't mean you need a 3 minute o/v
CP
Competition theory is important.Solvency is not an internal net benefit and isn't a reason to vote for the counterplan--that includes impact calc
There is no such thing as a cheating counterplan if the aff doesn't read theory. I don't care how abusive the cp is and I will vote on it given that aff offense is lacking
If you're going for a meme/joke advocacy, run it as a k--that makes it funnier on k proper and framework
K
I love kritiks. They are wonderful and are some of my favorites args, but framework is important. If fmwk is conceded, then I can't vote on the k.
Severance is very persuasive on the perm level. I will understand most arguments and it's more likely than not that I kick the arg because I believe severance happens
I debated set col, psychoanalysis, and cybernetics k debate. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit. I've researched some wacky k's before (STEM, anthro, hauntology, pearl harbor, deleuze, baudrillard, cioran, todestrieb, matrix, etc.) but that doesn't mean I will automatically understand the k
Kicking the alt is bad unless fmwk permits it
I like rejection alts, but material and educational solvency need to be won (depending on fmwk interps)
K Aff
I've experimented with k affs and run a few, but know this: I love them. I'm not a professional, so I need the aff story to be consistent and have a clear reason and strong offense as to why rejecting a plan text is necessary
The advocacy needs to be clearly articulated and have solvency
T is a generic neg strategy, so please spice things up with unique offense other than debate bad--I won't devalue the args if they're generic--although I do believe k affs are good for debate (but who cares if neg is winning the t flow)
Weighing the aff fmwk vs neg k fmwk is messy and typically devolves to impact calc--do that plus compartmentalize
Case
I'm not a fan of primarily stock issues paradigms, but if the round doesn't provide me anything else, I will become a stock issues judge. Inherency, harms, solvency, and t are important
If the aff is exceptionally bad, case 2nr's are fine, but make sure there's offense to talk about instead of exclusively defense
I think human extinction good is a funny arg, but will only weigh it as a joke and possibly as an rvi if the opposition makes genocide/bigotry turns
BTW, I consider impact calc to have 2 levels: the in round impacts and the imaginary fiat impacts and I weigh in round impacts over fiat impacts
Fun fact, kicking the aff can be strategic (and funny), but prob shouldn't be done
Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
LD General
I debated LD for 4 years in high school, have gone to nationals and was the 2023 5A state champ, so I have quite a few feelings about the activity
The most valuable part of LD is time: maximize offense and be concise always or you'll lose
I debated pure offense in LD: everyone else's value/criterion is problematic and maximize offense on the contention debates
V/Crit
i believe the value is the primary lens through which the round is voted on and the criterion is the means or thesis the case achieves the value
clash on v/crit is super underrated and makes the debate really easy to win
defense is mid for me because i don't have a clear reason to prefer one or the other without sufficient offense
Contention debate
i interpret the contention debate as your opportunity to meet the criterion by a preponderance of the evidence and will frame impacts as implicit reasons opposing value/criterion structure doesn't work
contentions can take the form of policy speeches or kritiks, but i'd prefer if they were formatted appropriately: don't run policy debate offcase, just read it on case or make it a main contention
topicality is rare, but if the violation is egregious without counter definitions, i'll allow it
Again, ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.
I've made this paradigm short, in hopes you read it, if you don't plan to, I recommend to AT LEAST look at the section for the event I'll be judging you in.
I've been in speech and debate for nearly a decade (and yes that is a really good line to put on my resume). I have done NFA-LD for 4ish years and that's where I've developed a lot as a technical debater. That meaning I am really good with the content of policy debate and the strategies of LD (the 1AR in NFA is 6 minutes instead of 4 though).
I use speechdrop, I absolutely hate email chain. Couple reasons:
- If you're worried about not having the files later, then save them to a folder when the round is over/write down the code for the round.
- I don't believe that your coach "doesn't allow you to use speechdrop"
This the only strong opinion I have about debate from a procedure sense. I try to be an impartial judge, but inherent bias is impossible to ignore. That being said I wasn't born yesterday so when kids lie to my face about using speechdrop I find it very hard to not let that influence speaker points.
GENERAL CONTENT -
K - I love the criticism but I am not a K hack. There are definitely critiques that I haven't read/heard seeing as I am not an omnipotent being. I am exceptionally fluent in cap/imperial critiques. I used to read anthro a lot... Worst case scenario just ask and I'll tell you, that or you could just make sure to be explanatory in your tags and I should be able to follow. If I can't explain what voting for you on the critique means, then I probably wont... I love well-articulated links, and insert some other buzzword thing that all judges like to see. Generally speaking, if you run and explain the criticism well you should win.
DA/CP - Like this strategy too even though it's not my forte. Not much more to say here other than don't be racist. Also, I don't have any strong opinions either way about any type of CP.
T/Procedurals - I should be able to explain how I get to an interp through one or more standards into one or more voters and why that actually justifies a ballot without adding too many words for you. I don't think any procedural arguments are off limits, but I am not a fan of tricks, like if you want to win on theory I want it to be due to the quality of your argument and not because you snuck a hidden argument into like point 6/23 of a theory sheet and suddenly the debate is over.
High School LD-
I did value debate in high school. It's been a while, but I still remember everything as much as I don't think it's as educational as policy debate. You can read your value and criterion; however, I am looking for a few things.
- I want the value to be thoroughly explained whether it's as a broad principle or as it pertains to the rez. I also need you to explain why your value is superior.
- I want you to explain how your criterion reaches your value or is the best path to achieve a shared value. That being said this is where I'll evaluate case arguments.
- The way I interpret value debate is that case debate that doesn't connect to the value or criterion doesn't really matter so make sure you don't focus on micro arguments and lose sight of the big picture.
This all being said I don't think you have to do value debate in LD, but if one person tries to do value debate and the other doesn't, I expect an argument as to why value debate is good/bad. I'll probably default to policy good and not expect a value unless it is clear that most debaters in the pool are running values.
Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano
Current Affiliation: Kansas State University
Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.
List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:
- Real world impacts.
- Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
- Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)
List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:
- Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
- Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.
Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.
List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:
- Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Impact Calc.
List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:
- Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
- Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.
Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.
Email (For Email chains): natalieriggs05@gmail.com
Pronouns: They/Them
Policy Debate
I am mostly going to be judging based on knowledge of your resolution, speaking skills, and ability to answer arguments. I have done both debate and forensics throughout High School.
Yes email chain (I prefer Speechdrop if it's all the same but good with whatever) -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. That is more of a statement of experience than philosophy; 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, I am likely to struggle to understand how you justify an affirmative ballot.
3) Debate is an oral activity. While I will want your speech docs, I flow based on what I hear. If I don't hear it, I will not fill in my flow later based on what you send.
4) 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. (See below for my detailed approach to clipping.)
5) 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.
6) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. I don't generally believe in a conditional 2NR.
7) Flow the debate, not the speech doc. Very little moves my speaker point calculation down faster than debaters responding to arguments that were not made in the debate.
8) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please. If you fly through a theory block at maximum evidence speed, it probably won't all make it onto my flow.
9) 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. While I can explain to my students a more modern offense-defense framework, I do still largely view T as a true-false question.
10) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.
11) 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.
12) 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.
Clipping Policy
Clipping - Representing, through sending a speech doc or other means, that you have read evidence which was not read in the round. If evidence is highlighted, skipping any un-highlighted words is clipping; if evidence is not highlighted, skipping any un-underlined words is clipping. Verbal indications to "cut" or "mark" a card are acceptable indications that you have chosen not to read all of a particular card in the doc, and you should be prepared to provide a marked version of your speech to your opponents if requested.
Clipping continues to be a major issue in our activity. You are welcome to make a formal challenge, and if you do so, the relevant KSHSAA/NSDA/etc rules will control rather than my personal approach, which is:
1) If you clip a card, I will make my decision as though you did not read that card at all. It will be removed from my flow.
2) If you, as a team, clip four or more cards, you will lose my ballot on poor evidence ethics without the need for a formal challenge.
3) If both teams in a debate violate #2, I will decide the debate as normal based on any un-clipped cards from both sides.
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
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 (i.e., paraphrasing) 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.
Note: You may see another Tyler Slinkard paradigm on tabroom, use this one. The other is from an old account. There is no major difference between the two other than I have updated some info for Highschool competitors.
Background:
4 years of policy and LD in High School (Fort Scott Sr. High)
4 years of NFA-LD in College (University of Central Missouri)
1.5 years of coaching speech/debate in College (UCM)
General In-Round Info:
Keeping the flow clean is the easiest way to win my ballot. I have based the info below on my previous decisions. Note the points where I have found the analysis in round was most effective in making me vote aff/neg.
LD (Highschool):
Value/Criterion-not necessary but if you are not engaging with the traditional structure of the event then at least make it clear what you are doing and why I should (or should not) vote one way.
LD (College) CX (Highschool):
*Speed* If you keep the flow clean, you can go as fast as you want. I will say "clear" if I cannot understand your rate of delivery. Please note, I am slightly bad of hearing. The wonderful result of growing up in a rock-musician's house.
Topicality-an a priori until a counter framework is presented. The negative needs to show me how their definition directly relates to the affirmative case. If you want my ballot on T; explain the violation.
Ks and all manner of dark sorcery-My wheelhouse in college was the Cap K, but near the end I started to venture into feminist literature and I have since fallen into a wide array of different perspectives that I now generally, at least in part, embrace. That said, in the following section I have included my general view of debate's relationship to the individual and society because I think that is the best way to explain my understanding of Kritiks.
Debate is a performance like any other event. Policy presentations have their place and are not inherently contradictory to critical evaluation. However, policy debate is a social associate of power in the status quo. For me, that is true for psychic, bio, and material power within the American system. That said, debate, as a collective idea, is not a state of counter/anti-fascist praxis, but it can be a space.
Debating as a practice of evaluation by means of competitive information processing is important because debate questions (i.e. resolutions) are not only an attempt at examining competing positions and placing one over another, but also the reassertion of a primary mode of processing. A traditionalist would contend that primary mode is policy. Indeed, the most recent NFA rules for Lincoln-Douglas maintain the event should be a "policy-oriented dialogue." That places policy discussions inherently above alternative mechanisms from the outset. Thus, in my mind, the Kritik is about rejecting not only a previous position but also the recognition of the inherent bias of organized debate.
I myself am game for any rejection of status quo politics. I just like clash.
That is a very general synopsis of my view on critical debate. Please feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds.
Impact Calculus-While my background would indicate a desire for a clear, concise line-by-line, I've found the BP style of rebuttals has a greater capacity for keeping my attention. I also recommend that people collapse to as few arguments as possible. Use your time efficiently.
I find systemic (violence) implications far more compelling than existential/terminal ones. That said, I have voted for extinction many times.
Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv
Tell me why anything you are reading in the round matters, don't just rattle off cards. That is key to clash for me.
Disadvantages this year are in desperate need of uniqueness, tell me how the Aff plan itselfis going to cause the impact. I don’t mind Kritiks, just be aware of the weaknesses inherent in putting one forward in the round.
Pronouns: They/them - yes I am fem-presenting, doesn't matter. I will vote you down for repeatedly misgendering me or anyone else in the round. On the subject, I will probably ask for everyone's pronouns.
Email for email chains: defeateddrum@gmail.com
PLEASE use an email chain OR speechdrop, my computer doesn't like flash drives for some reason lol.
Experience:
3 years of Varsity Debate at Lansing High School. I was a finalist at Iowa Caucus and made it to Quarters at Glenbrooks. I was a competitor for Lansing at Kansas Regionals and State Tournaments for two years , I also qualified and competed at CFL and NSDA's tournaments.
Foreword: Be good people. I will not hesitate to vote you down for any transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, and whatnot, no matter who it's directed towards. I will take off speaker points and leave a comment on the ballot if a male debater is blatantly speaking over a woman or fem-presenting person in cross-ex or anywhere else; this has happened to me in-round, I know what the difference between an aggressive cross-ex and misogyny is. If I hear or see you in any way harassing or bullying your opponents before, during, or after round, you will be voted down. This includes running things like Heidegger; I will vote you down if you run a Nazi's arguments. If you think the other team/ anyone in the room has been transphobic/homophobic/ misogynistic/racist/etc, call it out.
FOR PAPER TEAMS: If you debate on paper, I have certain requirements, these are not optional. 1) You cannot use a laptop in other speeches. A paper 1AC and a digital every other speech is needless gatekeeping of information. 2) You MUST have a copy of the aff for the neg AND the judge, they must have access to this at the START of the 1AC.
I consider violation of these an ethics violation, I will auto downvote you for it. If there are unique circumstances, talk to me.
DISCLOSURE RULES: Disclosure is REQUIRED unless the aff is breaking new (aka this is the first time running this aff). If you refuse to disclose, I will ask if you are breaking new. If you are not, I will require that you disclose.
On to the actual paradigm lol
I was a very tech-y debater, so if something's not covered on here, assume I have a really tech opinion. I am tech over truth.
Topicality:
-I ADORE a good T debate.
- Standards like limits, ground, and brightline are where the bulk of the T debate should be.
-I default to competing interpretations. It's really hard to convince me to vote on reasonability but I can do it if it's well-done.
-Having good interp cards is not as important to me as the impact your interp has on the topic/debatespace.
-TVA's are great, but you don't need them to win a T debate with me.
-Squirrely T definitions are fine with me. Just run them well.
-You don't really need to explain to me why education and fairness are impacts, but DO explain how limits and ground shape them.
Disadvantages:
-I really dislike DA's that have no internal link chain or one that makes no sense.
-I will accept generic links, but some analytic explanation of how they link to this specific case (esp if the Aff calls you on it) is good.
Kritiks:
-I. LOVE. K'S. I ran the Cap K all the time, I love them!
-That being said, I don't know a ton of deep deep K literature. I am fine with the basics. Anything else I'll need some explanation for.
-Links of omission/masking links are NOT LINKS.
-Language and reps links are great, love em.
-Use whatever framework you want, just justify it.
Counterplans:
-I'll allow pics and plan-plus cp's IF the neg explains them, why they're competitive, etc. You'll have to do a LOT of work to convince me to vote for these. Affs are very welcome to run a million theory violations on you for it, though.
-Consult cp's are absolutely cheating though. I'll vote these down if the Aff calls it out for being cheaty.
-You need a net-benefit (internal is ok if explained) and to be mutually-exclusive, as per usual.
Case Debate:
-Affs, if you lose the case debate, you lose the round. If the 2AC doesn't extend case, and the neg mentions it, I'm putting Neg on the ballot immediately. Same with any case turn.
-I will not grant the 1AR any new arguments. You get what the 2AC says, nothing else (unless the neg reads something new in the block).
K Affs:
-I'm okay with y'all reading them, as long as you a) explain them to me, and b) run them well.
-T USFG vs K Affs is always fun to watch. I find that T-Framework is the easiest way for the neg to win against a K Aff.
-K v K debates need explanation: I find that these debates often go so high into k theoryland that I just kinda sit there not understanding a thing.
Miscellaneous Stuff:
-JUDGE. INSTRUCTION. GIVE IT TO ME. I WILL NOT give you conceded arguments unless you point them out. On that note, I hate judge intervention and will avoid doing so if possible.
-Extension = extending the claim + author/date. I am very strict on this - shadowextensions do not count, I will not flow them.
-Ask me questions before and after rounds! I love answering questions, please come ask me! If you disagree with one of my decisions, come ask me why I voted the way I did (respectfully, of course).
-Barry 17
-Lighthearted banter and jokes between teams is a-ok with me
-If you need bathroom break or a breather if you're super anxious, let me know and go ahead.
-I don’t care if you eat/drink in round, just don’t be disruptive.
-I consider more than 7 off a jerk move and abusive. You're giving the 2AC a minute per offcase. Don't push it. Neg, you should be able to win a round with as little as 1 off or just case - running 7 off shows me that your strategy is "I hope we send the aff into a panic and exploit it" - that makes the debate worse for everyone.
-Have fun, do your best, and don't run Heidegger.
Good luck :D!
I am now the head coach for Lansing HS in Kansas. 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: willarddebate@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.
Speak clear and loud I have hearings aids but they don’t always work well.
I have experience doing extemporaneous speaking but that was many years ago.
I value professionalism and ethos, it’s hard to tell if your argument is good if you don’t explain it well and you sound un confident .
I’m very lay and my flow looks like class notes so even if you win the flow I won’t know unless I’m clearly told and given why it matters.
Recommendations for you from my grandson,
• Don’t harp on the same thing during CX your goal is to build arguments during that time.
• Connect your arguments to real world events, what your opponents said, and how it affects the world.
• Eye connect please look my grandpa in the eye.