I have judged debate and forensics off and on for the last 7 years.

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.

I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.

I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.

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.

I do not like spreading, unless you are articulate and easy to understand. Enunciate and clarify taglines and authors.

I do not like T or K as a general idea, but if you can give specific links and thoroughly explain how the case is a violation, try it.

I like good argument structure and organization. Speeches should be easy to flow and keep track of.

I like when you answer the arguments in the order it was presented originally-- signpost and roadmap.

I do not like racial/gender theory-- it doesn't matter if you can link it to the case, I think it fundamentally takes away from debate.

I really like good sportsmanship-- duh.

I do not like new arguments being made in the 2NC/2AC. If you are going to be making arguments they need to be brought up in your first constructive.

Signpost, Signpost, SIGNPOST!