Debate experience: I debated for 1 year in high school, and currently teaching our middle school debate elective

Judging experience this season: Andover High School Debate Tournament, Wichita Southeast Debate Invitational, Nickerson Cowbell Classic, KSHSAA 321A 4 Speaker Debate Regional @ Collegiate

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates? Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate? Stock issues emphasis, Policy maker emphasis

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer? No preference regarding speed.

Counterplans are... Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Topicality is... Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue

Firstly as a person who has been a highschool competitor, and now on a college team and a coach of this activity I would hope I know the basics, like for example what the stock issues are, and framework, amongst other things so while in round to try to not waste time you do not need to explain these or just most basics of debate.

Am I a policy maker or a stock issues judge? Hmm well for me I'd rather make it a policy issues round and weigh it apon impact calculation but if it's not provided I will default to stock issues.

When it comes to being neg in a round I love off case arguments including multiple DA's and i feel that just one or two will not win you a round. But on the other hand of that I'm not a fan or k's, unless you are really good at explaining why they work in the round and why I should actually care just avoid them like the plague

Please please please do not spread, I do not care how fast you read I can understand most paces and can keep up normally pretty well on the flow, but the moment you start spreading you almost basically are losing round, I simply just can't understand you and it makes the whole round critically less entertaining.

Overall just make this a fun time for everyone, there is no reason to be rude or nasty to others. Just make this a positive and educational experience it's why we are all here

Assistant Coach - Maize South High School

2 years policy debate, plus 8+ years judging policy

4 years forensics having competed in every event except LD & PFD and specializing in Oration and Informative

ROAD MAP YOUR SPEECHES. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE GOING ON THE JOURNEY.

DEBATE POLICY, NOT THEORY IN POLICY DEBATE. I CARE ABOUT THE CASE, NOT THE ETHICS.

email for chain: fcaster@usd266.com

Right off the rip, Speech Drop time is prep time. Make sure you keep your prep running until the file is in the Speech Drop. This is why prep was increased to 8 minutes so I want to make sure all teams are following this rule.

I am a policy maker judge at heart. I want my debaters to present a plan for how to solve an issue that is grounded in reality. Don't argue theory about how the world is broken, tell me what actual plans we can put in place to fix a problem. On the neg team side, either show me the squo is good, that the aff plan itself is flawed, or come to me with a better plan than the aff. I just want actual tangible options to vote on, not a bunch of theory. Save that for LD.

Because of this DAs and CPs are the keys to my ballot, along with some on-case attacks. I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both sides (the plan for the aff and the squo or CP for the neg depending on what route they take) and then decide which one weighs out better. As long as the pros outweigh the cons then I will likely vote for you, though that is not always the case cause as we know each round is unique and nuanced, but that is a general guideline that will lead you to be successful with me as a judge.

One note on CPs, pick ONE and run with it. I really dislike multiple CPs being ran in round, namely cause it comes off as a scatter shot and disorganized attack hoping that the aff just drops one. If you want to run multiple CPs make sure to bundle them under one umbrella and present it as a clear and cohesive plan.

I do not like speed to be used as a weapon. I understand in debate the pace of speaking will be picked up to get all the info in, but if I ever feel that a debater is attempting to speak quickly just so that the opposing team will not hear an argument and then not be able to respond to it, I will judge that critically and penalize you for that. In short, DO NOT SPREAD.

I appreciate when debaters "get off the cards". I want to see debaters analyze their cards and break down their arguments and try to connect with me on a human level rather than just rattle off facts and figures for the duration of their speech.

I am open to Topicality arguments but I want them to be specific. Don't just run T cause you feel like it and don't argue that your definition of "the" is better than someone else's. If you run T it needs to be specific and show that the affirmative is actually harming the competitiveness of the round and being abusive.

For Kritiks, I am not the biggest fan. If you are going to run a K it better be strong and it must tie directly into an overall argument on why the specific aff plan is bad and further perpetuates the issue. In short, I judge very harshly on these and require them to have a strong connection to the topic and the aff for me to vote for them. If not then I just feel you are using them to avoid debating the policy of the round, which goes against what I feel policy debate is designed for.

TL;DR - I want policy to be debated in policy debate. Help me understand the pros and cons of your position in the round and show me how voting for you leads to a larger positive than voting for the other side. Keep things rooted in reality and avoid theory as much as you possibly can.

I worked in radio for 8 years before transitioning to education so I value good communication skills in a round and being able to connect with people as I have spent a chunk of my life honing that skill. Your evidence is important but your ability to properly convey it to me is just as important. I want to see you communicate your intentions of your arguments and where you stand on the issues in the round.

As a reminder this is an educational activity and we are all people just trying to get better and learn things. I understand debate in its very nature is confrontational, but remember that your opponents are fellow human beings just like you and should be treated with respect. Try to avoid being argumentative in rounds and keep it loose.

At the end of the day just have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

Small town KS former debater and coach. I will follow just about any argument, but my thoughts on each are below:

DA - Generic links are fine with me usually. I will default to weighing impacts of the DA vs Adv of the Aff unless framed otherwise. I don't like you to leave too much up to me here so please explain in the round.

K - Don't like generic alts, so if you do make sure that you very specifically lay out what the world of the alt looks like.

CP - usually need to win the net benefit debate to pick up my ballot. Not a fan of CPs that just claim to Solve better, especially if Solvency is

T - Love it but hate it if you don't know how to run it. If you only know how to address the violation debate without even touching interp, standards, or voters, you will probably drop my ballot on T.

Stock Issues - Fine but don't just say "the aff loses one stock issue so they should lose the debate". Explain why that matters.

At the end of the day, how I feel about the arguments doesn't really matter. What matters is that you are primarily:

a. Flowing, most rounds are lost because someone is lost in the round and not addressing other arguments

b. Clashing, lots of rounds just like to throw evidence back and forth without really clashing. Analytics are good on why I should realistically prefer your argument.

c. Framing the round and telling me why I should prefer your impacts/alternatives.

Last Updated: 12.13.24

Baine Dikeman - pref speech drop - email chains/questions:bainedikeman@gmail.com

Coaching Experience

Eisenhower High School: Head Coach (since 2020)

Previously Mulvane High School: Assistant Coach (2017-2018)

Debating experience as a competitor:

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

This Year's Topic

I have judged plenty of rounds on this topic, including 5 DCI rounds at Buhler. I have no specific opinions about the topic literature - evidence in-round dictates truth.

Details of Paradigm

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

I don't like new Off Case in the 2NC, unless the AFF is cheating.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP but remember your voters. I have voted on both reasonability and competing interps - it depends on the quality of the debate. I don't typically vote on time-suck unless there is genuine abuse. T is almost never a voter for the AFF exclusively (unless NEG is cheating).

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional, but make sure you have a decent net ben. Contradictory counterplans (multiple worlds) aren't my favorite unless the AFF is cheating.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I tend to vote on DAs with solid and specific links. Don't run a CP that links to the DA.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. If the alt of the K is going avoid its impacts/implications, then the role of my ballot (Truth>Tech).

Ask me any questions for clarification.

Decorum/General Procedures

Flash Time/Email Chain Time/Speech Drop time can be off time, but I would prefer we expedite these processes as much as possible.

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep/speech time.

I prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically deduct speaker points for haphazardly jumping around on the flow or unnecessarily being a jerk in CX or speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

Clash and signposting are a must for me (sorry not sorry). Tell me what you're answering. Could be as simple as "on the Dole 24 card - [read ev]." This is immensely helpful and leads to a better ballot.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites if you want me to flow effectively.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, I may miss something on the flow if you are unclear. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

My experience:

-Competitor @ Remington HS 2013-2016 (CX, primarily speech focused IEs)

-Competitor @ Sterling College 2016-2020 (IPDA, platform speeches + extemp)

-Coach @ Ashland HS (a.c. 2021, h.c. 2022-23; IEs only, but judged a few CX rounds here and there)

-Coach @ Nickerson HS (a.c 2018-2020, h.c 2023- present; CX, Congress, all IEs, some LD, PF, & BQ)

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.)

Finally, debate is an educational and professional activity (even if we're here because we think it's fun). When I'm deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer your arguments and analysis's impact on the round more than how pretty a speaker you are. However, kindness is a voting issue. If you do something that is extremely rude or offensive to another debater (it doesn't matter which team!) I cannot and will not reward you with a high rank or the win. I like to see debate rounds. I don't like to see bullying. This activity provides an AWESOME opportunity to create connections with other people. Do not let the heat of the moment take that away from you.

I am a simple Stock Issues judge. Nothing fancy or remotely trendy. Sound arguments presented clearly and concisely will earn my attention every time.

Debate is a contest of skillfully-articulated ideas. It's offering an audience "good reasons" for thinking or believing in one way as opposed to another. Simple enough ... but surprisingly hard to do well consistently. If you're not truly communicating -- making a genuine effort at establishing dialogue -- then you're really only talking to yourself in public.

Hopefully I've come by that conclusion honestly. I started out as a Lincoln-Douglas debater shortly after the dinosaurs stopped roaming the earth (circa 1981). I moved over to several years of Policy debate from there ... gradually followed by a Communication degree or two, and about 25 years of teaching Public Speaking, Persuasion, Argumentation, and Debate at the College level (including some happy years coaching Parliamentary debate).

Other than my quaint Stock Issues proclivities, there are maybe a few things that you should know about me --

*About Civility: I really want you to be kind and decent to each other. Defend your position, but be agreeable in the ways you disagree. Rudeness won't win you the round -- but it very well might lose it for you.

*About Speed: I know the strategy. I even used it a time two when I debated (a regrettable choice). The older, wiser me would tell you this: one cogent argument well-presented is worth five rushed & nearly-incoherent speed arguments.

*About Theory: let's not have the round spiral into a debate about debate. We have the resolution for a reason -- let's focus on it, straight-up.

*About Counter-Plans: if you're inclined, go for it. Realize these are a high-risk, high-reward strategy. If you're going to go there, go all in -- "halfway" CP's are rarely successful.

*About K's: these were all the rage on the College circuit back in the day. Truth is, they maybe worked for someone somewhere, but for most mere mortals they simply came across as pretentious and self-absorbed. You're smart people or you wouldn't be doing this activity -- please, take a pass on the K and leave it to the dustheap of debate history.

Background: I spent semester in high school in policy debate and participated in theater all 4 years of high school. During high school I participated in another activity that required ample public speaking. This continued even after high school through volunteering with that activity. I have been actively judging since 2021. I am not a coach but instead am the "team mom" and snack bringer. My educational background includes a degrees in business, youth development and data analytics. My career requires me to have good grasp on communication (both spoken and written) and does commonly require me to review case law and contracts. My career also requires negotiation which includes persuasive arguments as well as arguments that are clearly supported with evidence.

Debate: I do understand stock issues but I am not overly technical. Roadmaps (even in the 1AC) are appreciated as it helps me flow. Fast paced speeches are okay but please no spreading. If using the nuclear annihilation argument, please make sure it clearly links and isn't just a "all roads lead to this" argument.

Forensics: Please let me know if your piece's topic involves suicide.

I don't really have one. I'll judge anything from stock issues to kritiks. If all else fails I default to stock issues when nothing else merits judging. I look for strong evidence backed arguments with clear links and justifications. I am big on structure and clarity, so well structured speeches and arguments go a long ways. (If you're a novice reading this, that means FLOW!!!! You're not going to have good speeches unless you do)

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.

Hello! I'm Sarah Schlottman, and this is my second year as head coach at Abilene HIgh School.

I am a stock issues judge and will vote as such. I will be flowing the debate as well.

I am not familiar with many K's, so please explain it to me if you are running one other than capitalism.

Please provide me roadmaps, signposts, analytics and impact calc. I want to hear you explain your evidence and how it links, do not just read it. Tell me why I should vote for you!

Please speak clearly and stay professional. I am fine with a moderate/fast rate of speed, as long as I can understand you. Clarity over speed, always!

I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs. You need to tell me why I must weigh the CP more than AFF

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

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.