Pronouns: They/Them/Theirs

I like a good clash debate, make sure you flow and signpost. I will vote on abuse in round if you can tell me why it’s important and prove that it was abusive or problematic. I like a more traditional debate, but I also think that Ks are important at times.

I am okay with a reasonable amount of speed, I need to understand what you are saying, and I’m too anxious to say speed if it gets too fast. I will just stop writing; if it’s not on my flow, I won’t vote on it.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

I have been a PF coach for 20+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.

1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.

2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.

3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.

4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF

5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.

6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.

7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.

I am a theatre director with a long background in performance, writing, and directing. My area of expertise is interpretive categories.

When judging speeches and interp categories, I expect to see confident, well-prepared, thoughtful, and honest speakers. I enjoy performances and speeches filled with creativity, emphasis on communication, and a heartfelt, honest quality that can't really be put into words. For any interp piece, your flashy tech and blocking is cool, but don't forget to ACT and make me BELIEVE what you're saying and doing! Please note that I judge also on your selection of literature. Any content with sexist, racist, classist, or ableist overtones will be scored accordingly. Speeches and interpretations on pieces regarding these matters are incredibly important, of course, but we must always consider whose voice is being amplified, and what exactly we are trying to communicate. Be wise and considerate!

In extemp & impromptu, speak confidently and passionately. Make good eye contact. Address the prompt in impromptu without going on random tangents that don't tie in. In extemp, make it possible for a layperson to understand. I enjoy extemps that are kind and educational, not just filled with tons of confusing facts and jargon.

For info, the visual is important. Be creative, or at least be neat. Be funny and engaging, but don't forget to INFORM!!

For duo, I expect to see balance between partners, strong emotional content, and some interesting tech and blocking. Tell the story with heart!

For DI, I expect to see something that I believe. That's really all I'll say.

For POI, I want to see something new, fresh, and original. Binder tech is cool and everything, but what are you saying? Why are YOU saying it? Make me believe what you're doing and talking about.

For HI, be creative with characters, have clean pops, have great forward energy, use an appropriate script, and don't choose something that just bags on women or minorities. Let's do better, yeah?

For all other speech categories, this is a SPEECH contest. The writing of your piece is extremely important of course, but it is your DELIVERY that really brings it home!

Plain and simple: communicate. If you don't communicate with me and your audience, you missed your mark. I will do everything in my feedback to help you improve. I am not the kind of judge who will just destroy you with rude feedback (unless you are rude to me). Problematic content and jokes will be pointed out, I have zero tolerance for them (and I'm not talking about language, I'm talking about openly promoting oppression). My goal is to help you improve wherever you are at. If you're at nationals ready to hit the final stage, great. If you're just starting, all the more power to you. Everyone can get better at this activity.

If you desire more feedback, you may always email me at ehageman@siouxlandchristian.org.

About me:

I am participating in speech and debate to help you and I learn and develop as members of our community.

My core values are honesty, integrity, and tenacity.

I believe that we all must respect each other, without regard for similarities or differences.

I am holding myself accountable to make this a beneficial experience for everyone involved. I hope you will do the same.

I have a wide variety of life experiences to include serving in the military for over 25 years, teaching at the high school and college level, and currently working for the federal government.

This is my second year participating in speech and debate!

About debate:

One is most effective if they respect others and show it.

Facts are more important than fiction.

Goal is to make it understandable for anyone/everyone.

The goals include to educate, learn, understand, explain, appreciate, and grow.

A public forum should not be a place to embarrass, belittle, demean, deceive, or exclude.

I mainly judge congressional debate and speaking events. I'll include information for how I evaluate PO's and speeches in different sections.

1. For Everyone Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough.

2. For Everyone Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

3.For Everyone I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a students movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you but yelling is also inappropriate

4. In congress Your speech should be bringing up new information. If your points have already been made in round than don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystalization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

5.In Congress this is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponents logic.

6.In Congress If you are speaking in the negation please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

7. In Congress While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violate chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

8. For Debate Events While I thoroughly enjoyed my time in debate I recognize that I am not a competitor thus it is not my responsibility to counter problematic arguments in round. If a competitor says something logically incoherent my belief is that it is the responsibility of the other debaters to actually call you out on it. If the chamber doesn't expose these problems during questioning, cross fire, or cross examination than I don't feel It is my responsibility to weigh it. However, I do think it is my responsibility to hold a fair round if someone is clearly engaging in academic dishonesty or violating the rules of the event it is absolutely my responsibility to step in and ensure the rules are being followed. ie: if I think a factual inaccuracy is mild or the result of error I will expect your competitors to call it out. If a factual inaccuracy is misrepresentation of a source or outright fabrication I have no qualms interjecting whether your opponent says something or not.

9.For Presiding Officers in Congress I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parli. I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking PO's at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

10.For Debate Events I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. That being said an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a persons speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not dig through a typed document to figure out what you are trying to say. Your job is to communicate your arguments to me. My job is to decide who wins a round. My job isn't to try and figure out what you are saying.

Final Thoughts

1. I don't care about how you are dressed. Though understand that other judges may care about that kind of thing even though they shouldn't.
2. I'm not typically a fan of silly arguments with the exception of the final speech in a round of congress but make sure everyone knows you are having fun.
3. Please make sure your judges are ready before stampeding into a speech. I want to make sure that I've found the appropriate place on my ballot to provide you adequate feedback.

Background: I was a PF debater from 2014-2016 on the local and national circuit. I also participated in a variety of speech events through NSDA tournaments as well as the IHSSA, including spontaneous, public speaking (IHSSA), and expository address (IHSSA). I am a recent University of Iowa grad (go Hawks!) and am pursuing a career as an actuary.

Debate Preferences:

• In the rebuttal, the team which speaks second should both attack the opposing team's case and defend their own case against attacks by the opposing team.
• Please collapse the round in the second half. If your opponents decimated one of your arguments and you don't have adequate defense, don't waste your time trying to prop it up. The most successful debaters are those who understand the context of their round and can pivot to frame the round around elements they are winning.
• Essential defense should be extended in the first Summary.
• If something is not mentioned in the Summary, it will not be flowed in Final Focus.
• I really appreciate voters in Summary and Final Focus.
• Weighing makes my job a lot easier. If no weighing occurs, you lose control of the round.
• I do not flow crossfire. If something important happens in cross, tell me in a speech.

Speaking Preferences:

• Organization: Please signpost whenever possible. Good organization helps me make a fairer decision and usually results in a better round of debate.
• Speed: I can handle moderate speed, but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to flow everything. Remember -- this is PF, not Policy or LD. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please slow down on author names and dates so I can keep track of evidence in the flow.

Evidence:

• I prefer that evidence be initially introduced by direct quote, but if you must paraphrase, please ensure you represent the evidence accurately with regard to its meaning, intent, and context. In later speeches, feel free to (accurately) paraphrase but make sure all evidence is connected to an author or organization for flowing purposes.
• After frequently dealing with teams using inaccurately paraphrased evidence during my time as a debater, I have zero tolerance for bad evidence. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if there is any question as to its credibility. Please have evidence either as a cut card or highlighted in a PDF. If I conclude that evidence has been misrepresented, I will drop it from the flow and drop speaker points as appropriate.

Arguments:

• While I am open to any argument, I am not very familiar with how to evaluate arguments that deal with Ks/theory/etc. You will have to work harder to explain to me why I should care (and slow down, please).
• Creative/unexpected arguments can be fun, but they still need to be well-supported, well-warranted, and impactful to be effective.

Other Items:

• I will do my best to keep time, but please time yourselves as well to keep everyone accountable.
• Please be respectful to your opponents. The inability to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please add me to the email chain: kepner.collin@gmail.com
• Feel free to ask me questions about what you have read here! Debate is an educational activity, and adapting to your audience is an important skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life.

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon. I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

1. I love debate and enjoy judging.
2. Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
3. Fulfilling my team's obligation.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive." Good luck!

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want, although I will not flow off a speech doc so you do actually have to be clear and intelligible

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

Still learning natcirc LD. However, I've watched dozens of those types of rounds on YouTube and am confident in my ability to evaluate debates. You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Please attempt to write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this.

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

PF and Parly: I have been judging debate since 2016 but I have no personal experience in debate. I teach political science so I am particularly persuaded by arguments that on concrete evidence, specific comparative examples, and empirical information. I especially appreciate emphasizing your strongest points - and using them directly to challenge your opponent's case - and directly challenging the obvious weaknesses of your opponent's case. I am not particularly concerned about technicalities. I will vote on topicality but the argument needs to be very, very clearly non-topical.

LD: I am a lay judge when it comes to LD. I have very little familiarity with the technical dynamics of LD. I do not follow the case on-line, so any questions about the evidence the debaters must point out themselves. I can handle some speed but use extreme speed and I will definitely miss some of the argument. Please do not run topicality arguments unless the Aff case is very, very clearly off topic! I do not need arguments that run to ELE. I will vote on the basis of reasonable consequences.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and NSDA speech and debate coach for Waukee High School. This is my second year of coaching and judging. I frequently judge LD and IEs.

rowens@waukeeschools.org

DEBATE:

tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions, turns, and weighing; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; be thorough and respectful.

Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the entire card during your extension.

Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, especially on the local circuit. I will say "slow" or "clear". If myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading as well.

Weighing: Need to link to your framework; if what you're weighing doesn't match the value/criterion of the round, it won't have much strength.

Theory, Ks, etc: Have limited experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in the local circuit. If you make a warranted argument, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it, but these are not the preferred main arguments to be run.

Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.

I'm a PhD in Rhetoric and Professional Communication, and I currently direct a writing center at a college. I have also taught public speaking, studied the art of memory, and researched various rhetoricians, both ancient and modern.

Naturalism is my bias: I want speakers to embody real characters, address real audiences, and make not only logical but genuine arguments. What this means for performance categories: I don't like dramatic affectation. I often see young speakers work themselves up to an emotional note that is larger than life, and, feeling satisfied at being superhuman, they stick on that note the entire performance. This is monotone; the most impressive note is monotone if held at the exclusion of all others. For instance, across an 8-minute funeral interpretation, don't snivel and stutter across every clause of the speech; real speakers under duress show dynamics: they muster courage and speak eloquently, humorously for stretches at a time, and then — sometimes astounding to the audience — the courage runs dry, and, stranded on the side of the road, despair pulls up and beats the snot and tears out of them... and then the speaker pull themselves together a bit, and they limp to the next gas station of courage. Naturalism is beautiful because it is human, and I value the authentic over the melodramatic.

Same goes for argumentative speaking: this whole thesis, points 1 through 3, repeat deal... It's tired, rote, and nonreflective of real, human audiences. Points 1 and 2 can be for a point, but what about making point 3 a reckoning with a counterargument? And why are conclusions mere restatements? Try to elevate and expand. Try to make it personal and moving. My model for great argumentation is persuasive conversation, and for that reason, I value argumentative points that reveal individual thought and creativity. I'd much rather hear a speaker struggle with a topic in depth than hear three rote, shallow bullet points repeated. I want to celebrate humanity in each of us, not artificial public speaking tricks.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile. If you speak later in the session, I want to hear clash with other representatives/senators. I also want to hear new information if you are representing the same point as someone who has spoken previously. I also track recency so I will note if a PO may miss a recency order. Make sure to maintain your professionalism during cross and during your speech. I will knock down a speaker if I feel they are being too aggressive during their speech or their cross.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!

Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.

If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.

Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.

I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.

If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.