Sunflower District Tournament
2018 — KS/US
Adam Akins Paradigm
John Andra Paradigm
I am a tabula rasa debate judge. I generally accept any argument regarding the aims and methods of academic debate. Many people say this is not possible, and if you also believe that, then make the argument and I'll listen to it.
I will not consider attacks on the bases of rational discourse itself, such as whether a thing can both be and not be in the same time and manner, or whether a whole is composed of its parts. These insights, intrinsic to human reason, must be assumed to argue towards any conclusion.
I also assume that policy debate is an educational activity concerning public policy. This typically limits the discussion to the laws, regulations, and customs of society. Purely speculative philosophical discussion does not reach the level of public policy unless that link is established during the round. Arguments on debate theory should relate to the policy question or to the educational aims of debate.
With respect to speed, I believe debate is a speech activity. I do not read speeches flashed to me beforehand, although I may ask to look at evidence after a round. I therefore need to understand what is being said. I tend to understand if the arguments are articulated clearly, with good signposting, at less than 350 wpm.
Zac Angleton Paradigm
derby debate coach. debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.
LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C case debate is import in disproving your opponent cant access V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even i will then look evaluate the case.
PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text ks are a quick way to lose my ballot. i prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.
T-aff should be topical, if neg runs T i feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they arn't topical they lose is not okay explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.
K- im good with most ks however don't assume i know the lit of them. explain it well. if i feel like the alt doesn't make sense or solve you probably explain or you wont win.
CP- im good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS but on this topic those are hard to come by. so i am willing to listen to topical CPS,
as far as theory goes I'm good with you making them args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient.
condo- is really the only thing that i would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.
disads- i like more true scenarios, good with most disads as long as your bases are covered. parts of the disad that i value the most in order
i think the link debates is one of the most important parts of the dis-ad debate.
case- case is important, one important thing to not is that on solvency try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die, im old school in the sense of stock issues if you lose one (specifically solve ) you typically would lose the round.
framework- if no no FW is read i default to impact calc, however i framework is fine, just because you win FW doesn't mean you win the round it means i weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.
last notes- i find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.
Ramona Ashraf Paradigm
Ashley Aulbach Paradigm
Rachel Barnes Paradigm
Scott Baxter Paradigm
Heidi Baxter Paradigm
Kayla Benson Paradigm
I debated for 3 years at Shawnee Heights (Domestic Surveillance, China, Education), and I am currently a freshman debater at Wichita State. In High School I was a 1N/2A. This is just a quick rundown of my paradigm, and please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts.
Add me to the email chain-- firstname.lastname@example.org
I love topicality!! This is one of my favorite arguments, and I am always willing to listen to a good T debate. If you want to win my T flow make sure you argue every level of topicality, and tell me why it matters in the debate. I am willing to vote on reasonability, however I usually default to competing interpretations.
I'm cool with DA's, they are fine to read especially if you pair them with counter plans. Generic Links aren't my favorite, if possible read a specific link.
I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP.
I run kritiks, however I don't consider myself a "K Hack". I'm comfortable with K's such as neolib, cap, and fem. You can read K's in front of me, but make sure there is analysis on how the alt solves. Alt solvency is one of the most important components of the K, and if the analysis is weak or if you do a blippy extension of the Alt I most likely will not vote on the K. Links and Framework are important to a good K debate.
Read whatever Aff you want, just make sure to provide a clear solvency mechanism.
Generic Things to Know
1. I'm fine with speed, however don't just spread through your analytics. If you don't sign post I won't flow.
2. If you are problematic in round your speaks will drop and I will note this on the ballot.
3. I'm open to listen to anything, just give me good claim-warrant-impact.
4. If I catch you clipping cards it's an automatic loss with 0 speaks.
Paul Boyd Paradigm
Roger Briggs Paradigm
Kenon Brinkley Paradigm
Zach Brown Paradigm
Wichita East HS
Updated: October 2017
Short version: Read below for more specific preferences. Give me a good big picture on your arguments and then focus on your specific line by lines. Focus on links over impacts. Quality of arguments and evidence matters more than quantity. Don't assume I'm as well versed in your argument as you. I like humor and gutsy strategic choices. Above everything else, be nice and have fun. Debate is important, but people matter more.
Primarily judge policy debate on the Kansas high school circuit.
17 total years of debate experience (2000-present).
7 years of experience as debater and assistant coach at Wichita State University (2004-2011)
10 years of experience as a high school coach at Wichita East HS and Hutchinson HS (2007-Present)
I have voted for all debate styles and types of arguments. I'm most familiar with CP/DA strategy, but I'm a also a fan of most well executed kritiks. I'm not the best judge for performance, dense high theory kritiks, and non-traditional and personal arguments. I'm just not as familiar with those kinds of arguments. If you read those arguments, I want to understand the context of your arguments, and give me a big picture summary. Don't assume I am super familiar with your literature or argument. Explain key terms, give me examples, and help me learn about your argument..
Topicality is not my favorite argument, and I'm receptive to reasonability in a lot of instances. I do feel that an affirmative should be grounded in the topic to a large extent, but I am open to debates about what that means and questions pertaining to whether an instrumental USFG approach is necessary. Clear explanations of ground and education lost are key for the negative to win T. I'm not likely to be highly persuaded by a T arguments with arbitrary interps. I have a pretty high threshold for voting against a team on a theoretical objection, I'm far more likely to be persuaded by "reject the arg not the team".
CP/DA/K arguments should have links specifically analyzed in the context of the aff. Impacts should be analyzed in timeframe/magnitude/probability. Impact framing is important- you have to win why your impact matters. If reading a K, don't rely on the jargon and buzzwords. Tell me what your K means in context of the aff and explain how your alt interacts with the aff and resolves the links. Not a fan of artificially competitive net benefits to CPs so that usually means that condition/consult/process CPs are not my favorite.
I don't like to call for evidence. I don't want the speech docs. I will typically only call for a card if there is a dispute to the contents or highlighting, or if I feel it is absolutely essential to making my decision.
The communicative aspect of debate is as important as the substantive aspect. Ethos and persuasion matter as much as line by line debate. I have no real preference for rate of delivery, but I have a preference for clarity. Most debaters are better served by slowing down just a bit to improve clarity, which improves speech efficiency and my understanding of arguments. If I don't understand your argument, I won't vote for it. Make your argument clear, give me a good big picture view. Don't expect me to decode a six page line by line debate for you. Don't expect me to make the cross-applications for you. It's the job of the debater to extend important arguments and do the evidence comparison. Don't just tell me to read the card after the round because it is "on fire". Give me pen time on things. Pay attention to judge
Evidence and source quality matters. I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. Far too many teams get away with reading absolutely terrible cards that are either from highly questionable sources or are highlighted to look more like a page from a MadLibs book than an actual argument. Call it out. If something is blatantly factually incorrect, like a card from 15 years ago that says "there are WMDs in Iraq", I will be highly skeptical and have a high threshold to vote for that argument. At the same time, if you have truth and history on your side, I don't think you always need a card to say something obvious like "the sky is blue". I'm a thinking human being, not a debate robot.
Good CX is the most underutilized part of debate. Good CX strategy will improve speaker points. I don't care about open cx, whether you stand/sit, or if you gotta take a few seconds of your prep to finish a line of questioning (don't overdo this though!). I do care if one teammate takes control of open cx without giving their partner a chance to ask/answer questions, if you constantly interrupt and don't even give your opponent a second to answer your question, or if you don't realize that a line of questioning and answering is getting you nowhere
Don't steal prep. Don't be typing on a speech doc while your partner or opponent is opening speech docs. Card clipping is a big deal, however unless it is particularly bad, I'd be more likely to be persuaded to reject a piece of evidence or lower speaks for a minor violation. I'd like to use that as a teaching moment in most instances, especially for younger debaters. For card clipping to rise to the loss level, it'll usually have to be more than just not marking it on one card. You'll have to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is not an accident. If I think that you're clipping, I'll deal with it after a speech. I also don't care for prompting during speeches, and it should be left for instances where prompting would make the difference between winning or losing. If you suck at flashing evidence before a speech, I reserve the right to start your prep time at my discretion.
Speaker points typically begin in the range of 27.5+ for average performance in a loss, 27.7+ for average performance in a win, and points increasing/decreasing depending on the quality of a speech or strategic decision. 28.3+ is usually my baseline for teams that I would expect would clear according to the skill level of the division. 29+ has to be something impressive. If you make the round more enjoyable points may go up. Points will decrease if you're rude, disrespectful, or offensive to your opponents, teammates, or anyone else. I like humor and gutsy strategic choices if you think you've got a shot. Be nice and have fun, debate is important but debate is more than just the ballot.
Teddy Carlson Paradigm
Maureen Corcoran Paradigm
Eden Costilla Paradigm
Peter Crevoiserat Paradigm
Shonda Curtis Paradigm
Brian Curtis Paradigm
Jason DeGarmo Paradigm
Caelan Dean Paradigm
Shelby Eastman Paradigm
Alisyn Edwards Paradigm
Dillon Engelbrecht Paradigm
I debated for four years at Eisenhower high school. I am now an assistant there and have been for three years. I debated 2012-2016. When I was debating my style depended based on the judge, so I've gone for everything from T to Ks. On the affirmative I mostly ran a K aff that had a plan text.
You can put me on the email chain if you're setting one up: email@example.com
I prefer medium to moderate speed and any slower. Not rapid. Please and thank you :)
I'm fine with most arguments. Here are some specifics.
T- I don't think that the aff has to be untopical to lose T. I think that if the neg has a reasonable interp and is better on the flow (and goes for T for 5 minutes in the 2nr) then, the aff can still be topical and lose on T. AKA please read T every round.
FW vs a K Aff - Will defer aff most of the time. If the neg says "policy good" read me a policy DA or CP against the aff to access any education impacts derived from policy debate.
Gabe Esquivel Paradigm
Gabe Esquivel 7/5/18
Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas
University of Kansas 2021
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a stereotypical policy 2n. I’m alright at flowing but may miss tricks/theory args if you don’t make them especially clear. I’m a 6/10 for speed. Maybe a 7 if I'm very awake. I mostly read CPs, DAs, and T. I read security and cap a couple times, but I never got familiar with anything else from the neg side. I've started to think about identity K's from the aff side more and with it has come a better understanding of the neg argument. I really like presumption and T. I have a very hard time with K's and internal link questions now a days. By this I mean that specificity almost always increases the probability of an argument which is how I've started to evaluate most link questions.
I can always be persuaded the other way on these arguments, and I always hope you can teach me something. All of this is to show where I'm at in terms of how I think debate works.
I lean aff on framework vs a neg K because I think the aff should get fiat and hypothetical implementation for fairness. I don’t really understand K’s without alts yet, but I'm eager to learn from a good team how they work. I've become more sympathetic toward education based arguments on framework so I think this might be changing.
I lean neg on framework/T against planless affirmatives because I like fairness. Cheating CPs are okay unless you lose theory. I think condo is either all good or all bad. I've think presumption is an offensive argument because change is risky and knowledge is imperfect so feel free to say "presumption outweighs the risk that the aff does anything". Competing interpretations are more persuasive to me than reasonability.
I think "status quo is always an option" certainly means judge kick and "conditionality" leaves room for debate. Please start early if you plan on judge kick.
How I decide debates:
I'll always do my best to determine the debate and I'll try to understand your argument to the full extent possible.
I tend to start with the impacts to see which ones matter most. Turns case arguments help me prioritize impacts. Then I evaluate the risk of link arguments in terms of probabiltiy, magnitude, and timeframe. When there is no comparison by teams I think of link arguments as equal in what is most intuitive/persuasive and see if there is any mutual concession or a floating argument that increases risk. .
I try to keep tech over truth but will use truthiness if I need to resolve arguments that are left unresolved or have no direct clash as I mentioned above. I tend to read cards if I get to this point and I grant more weight to spin.
Explicitly answering tricks like serial policy failure, floating piks, cp turns into the aff, and link turns case will help me not intervene as much. If I can't explain your link, internal link, or impact arguments to the other team in an rfd I probably won't vote for it. I like to leave things like judge kick or "insert re-highlighting into debate" to the debaters, but if it comes down to it I will judge kick for you except in some circumstances (see above).
To be honest, I’m young and have not judged very much so my thoughts on lots of these things are still malleable. Being persuasive and “striking chords” will be helpful. I’ll try to show when that happens or when I’m confused with facial expressions. I really like it when powerpoints are used in cx.
McKenna Florez Paradigm
I am an experienced flow judge. I vote off of stock issues, speaking skills and communications. I am okay with counter plans and K's. Speed is okay but it must be clear.
Noel Gary Paradigm
Lauren Gengler Paradigm
Connie Graves Paradigm
Andrew Halverson Paradigm
Name: Andrew Halverson
School: Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS), Assistant Coach
Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State.
[BELOW IS UPDATED FOR DCI AND STATE - My original philosophy is after the update.]
I'm going to be that person that vent a bunch of my pet peeves regarding how the logistics of the debate go and how I adjudicate debates. Here's goes a quick list (I intended this to be a quick list, but now it's decent sized list of what grinds my gears):
1. If possible, I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). If not, I want your speech docs flashed to me before you speak. There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision - these national qualifier tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.
2. Don't make the roadmap harder than it needs to be. PLEASE DO HAVE A ROADMAP! If you were giving a 1nc roadmap, it should sound something like, "There will be 4 off and then case in the order of Advantage 1, Advantage 2, and Solvency." DON'T SAY: "It'll be 4 off and case." WTAF?! Where do I flow these arguments on case? Find a place to put your arguments. Keep to it.
3. This jumping around on the flow thing is ridiculous. I have judged more debates than I can count this year where a debater says: "On Solvency, the AFF is key to...wait, back onto Topicality. Reasonability should be the lens to evaluate T because...oh, back on the other T." THIS DRIVES ME BONKERS!! Be clean on your flows. If I can't figure out where you and what's you're doing it will costs you lots of speaker points and, most likely, a victory.
4. Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.
5. Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.
6. Read below about this but I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.
7. Stop stealing prep time. In terms of flashing, prep stops when the save is complete and the flash drive leaves your computer. At this point, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people on the panel - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.
8. Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand.
9. New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter, BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.
---BELOW IS MY ORIGINAL JUDGING PHILOSOPHY---
I never know how to completely do these things – because I tend to think there’s no way this judging philosophy can 100% accurately describe how I evaluate a debate, but here goes.
Stylistically, I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.
What kind of argument and general preferences do I have regarding academic debate? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me. Hope all of this settles a few things about argument selection with me as a critic.
A caveat to the above – I have recently developed a disdain towards Consult CPs and most “cheating” CPs. If it’s a part of your core strategy, you shouldn’t be dissuaded from running these styles of argument. However, I tend to be sympathetic towards the AFF on theory and substantive arguments vs. this style of argument. As the NEG, you had better REALLY win this argument to win my ballot.
Debate theory is something that is continually evolving. As a young debater, you learn and execute the basics. Then other theoretical concepts come into play as you grow in debate. In the end, debate theory can be either really complicated or really interesting. Lots of people like to stay away from theory goo—I used to be one of them. Over time, I changed my viewpoint on the matter. One of my dislikes as a critic is tagline debating—especially when it comes to theory. Repeating your tags over and over again aren’t going to convey your point any further unless you get deeper into the claims/warrants being argued. Anyway, thoroughly explaining your theory argument is a very good idea with me. Like other debate arguments, I want to theoretically know what your interpretation of whatever aspect of debate theory includes or exclude—what the world looks like under your viewpoint.
Comparing and contrast claims, whether with evidence or analytics, is extremely important for me. If you don’t do it, then you’ll leave me to kneejerk to my own proclivities. That means that I’ll probably end up concocting a story that makes sense to me—confusing you and probably leaving you a bit irritated. My advice is do the work for me so I don’t get into such a position. For the record, I do tend to lean liberal with both my debate and political proclivities.
Finally, I know you hear this a lot, but be nice and have fun. If you have any specific question about my philosophy (which you should because this certainly doesn’t explain everything), ask me questions either immediately before the debate or you can e-mail me at halverson.andrew [at] gmail dot com. Hope this clear a few things up. Happy Debating to all of you!!
And by the way, below is a semi-judge of how I give speaker points. I stole the bulk of this (actually all of it) from Lucia Scott, so I guess this means she’s gets a h/t in this portion of my judging philosophy. This is a guide for how I give speaks, but it is subject to contextual change with any given debate (which probably shouldn’t happen very often – if at all).
25 or below – You were so offensive I almost told you to shut up. You're lucky my RFD wasn't as long as they would give me telling you how terrible whatever you said was. This also includes instances where I think you probably aren’t ready for the level of debate that I was judging at the time.
25.5-26.5 – You didn't use all your speech time, and/or your partner gave most of your rebuttal. You probably repeated yourself a lot and your speech, most likely, was not compelling at all. You also might have just been absurdly rude.
27 – You failed to extend warrants, your speech was so disorganized it hurt, and/or your rebuttal was clearly scripted. You made some kind of damning strategic error. I had to say clear twice and you still weren't clear.
27.5 – This is where I start. Your speeches were pretty average with no glaring strategic errors. You were decently clear, but by no means should you quit speed drills.
28 – Your strategy or the way you deployed it impressed me in some way. You're pretty fast and pretty clear.
28.5 – You're fast and I understood almost everything you said. You're persuasive. Your strategy was efficient and effective.
29 – I understood everything you said. You obviously know your arguments well, maybe even cut the argument yourself. You were smart and aggressive without being rude at all. I
had fun watching you debate.
29.5 – Your speeches were so devastating the other team had no chance. I heard every single word of every single card. You didn't rely on cheap arguments. Everything you said could've been the 2NR/2AR. This was a super easy decision.
30 – You're not getting one of these UNLESS there are some amazing circumstances that permit it OR you have given one of the top 3 debate speeches that I have ever heard. Usually, this amount of point means that I think you could win the NDT right now.
Ruthann Harris Paradigm
Nick Hawthorn Paradigm
Mercedes Hindman Paradigm
Policy maker with stocks roots. Negative constitutionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.
Alec Hinecker Paradigm
I debated at Derby HS, I currently debate at Wichita State
If you have any questions feel free to email me at email@example.com
Quick sum up: I can flow you speaking unless you are unclear, I will not try to keep up with you if you don’t try to make sense. I am fine with every policy argument. I am fine with anything critical arguments, just explain it.
My 5 important thoughts:
Thought 1. Debate is a game, but that doesn’t mean you can’t cheat. Critical and policy arguments are both things I did in high school, going for any CP and DA to things like Nietzsche, cap and Settlerism (I lean Policy because I understand it better). Critical affirmatives are perfectly okay for me; however, I personally think they aren’t always the most strategic. Against most critical affirmatives I usually went for FW - that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s abusive always, however.
Thought 2. Speaking is IMPORTANT. While I’m personally not very influenced by Pathos I think Logos and Ethos are both very important in debate: they will help with speaking points and my decision. Debate is still a persuasive activity.
Thought 3. Things like framing contentions and soft impacts on face don’t sway me personally. I really enjoy big impact debate with great affirmative and negative strategy. And honestly most framing contentions aren’t very persuasive to me -they don't accomplish a ton (this doesn’t mean if they aren’t executed well I won’t vote for it). You still need to answer specific impacts and DAs/Ks.
Thought 4. Amending CPs are fine. I think that the neg gets a lot of leeway with CPs,things like late 2AR explanation are boarderline cheating. The states, conditions, and consult CPs are probably cheating
Thought 5. The way I evaluate a new argument in rebuttals is if the other team could predictably answer that argument to the full ability where the aff or neg can exploit it. This can be very important in a lot of messy debates, and I think that teams get away with a lot.
Added-thought: Tech v. Truth: what I’ve learned is that both are important. If someone conceded a DA they concede it. However, if you’re going for a link argument that just isn’t true even if it’s conceded, I will be less likely to vote for that argument; truth is important to some degree with specific arguments.
Speaking: Speaking style is important; however, it does NOT require sacrificing speed. Being fast can be important, especially in debate. Speed isn’t everything though, and many young debaters don’t understand that. For flowing, it’d be easiest if you were as clear as possible, if not it’s a huge ethos kill and I will clear you. Things like persuasion are important too, line-by-line isn’t always the most important thing and things like ethos will make writing a ballot much easier. It also helps with speaks - I will start at 28.5 and work my way up and down. These things will help you a lot.
Counterplans: Perms don’t make any sense unless they solve the net benefit, or if the NB links to the CP. Intrinsic and Severance perm theory aren’t voters, but are reasons why rejecting the perm solves. A good cp will make the debate easier. You can also check my thoughts for other opinions on which CPs are legit. Judge kick is implied in condo, I believe that absent the aff giving good reasons why I shouldn't judge kick, I will.
Disadvantages: They're fine. If your DA doesn’t make any sense though, I will be more willing to believe aff arguments.
Case: if you make the right arguments it helps a lot, a good case debate is the best. Highly undervalued in debate. You shouldn’t ignore it. Also, I think judges give way to much leeway on case for the aff, a DA and case strategy can work. Killing a case can boost speaks.
Kritiks: I don’t know every K lit, I went for the K, and it can be strategic. Explain your links and impacts, why the alt solves or why it doesn’t need too, and just make sense. Be clean. The best K debaters are the ones who can win the flow without an annoying or arbitrary overview, and can use they’re link to make turns and solvency deficits. If you can do that you’re ahead of the game. But I am very framilar with cap FYI.
Kritikal affs: I thought this needed it's own section. I have 3 primary issues with these debates that need to be clear for me to be able to warrant voting for it. 1) I think you need to have clear impact explanation and compare it to why it outweighs framework, fairness, education. If you can win I should weigh your aff against framework impact comparison is very important. I also have never read one ---- please remember that. 2) SLOW DOWN. Most K debates I have seen read overviews and make arguments so fast it can be hard to comprehend what you are saying and apply it to the debate. K affs are suppose to be more be more pathos oriented and persuasive, why should i think the topic is bad, framework, the K, why perms are good, etc. These mechanisms are important, very. Slowing down and making 3-5 arguments instead of 7-9 can be more persuasive and win the debate. It also makes it easier for me. 3) Tell me what to aff does! Solvency mechanisms are important, how does it spill up/over, why is it important. For negative teams, I think presumption is a persuasive argument and can be a good winner.
Framework: not much different than T honestly, but there are 2 specific things I think you MUST/should include to win this debate. 1) truth testing is a persuasive argument to me. Its a presumption argument and a limits magnifier. If you win it is hard to contest the aff a theoretical level without sounding racist or without being problematic Can win a debate. It is persuasive - but you have to do it properly. 2) You need to have a theoretical defense of policy education, making, decision making, topic, etc. If you are missing this component I find "fairness" as a weaker option. Do I think it's an impact? Yes. Do I think it's a 'good' impact? Not necessarily.
T: awesome, just make sense. Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, and reasonability I see best as an "we meet" modifier. Do your impact work, please.
Theory: not the biggest fan, I truely don’t believe it’s a “reject the team” argument ever. It can make CPs go away, just be smart with it. To much is overkill, and I think if it's conceded it isn't always a reason to win. I have found, however, with respect to critical arguments severing reps theory arguments can be effective.
Ashley Hinton Paradigm
Jodee Hobbs Paradigm
Sohail Jouya Paradigm
Current Director of Debate at Mill Valley (Kansas)
Director of Debate at Andover Central (Kansas)
Director of Debate at University Academy and Lincoln Prep (DEBATE – Kansas City)
Coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College
Yes, email chain - sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom
If you use your phone as a timer and you use this as your ringer - NO POINTS, NO WINS! (That's like anti-ASMR)
- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.
- Truth > Tech. I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of "realistic impacts" or "reasonability" -- what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.
Don't fret: if the 1NC drops case on your Cthulu Aff, you'll probably be fine to weigh against whatever stuff they got...
- As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.
Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:
- All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.
- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.
- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.
I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour and shade have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t in bad faith. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel.
- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision
Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.
While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.
- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.
- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.
- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.
- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.
- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.
-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that probably needs to be established prior to the 2NR. While I say that, I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR.
- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not.
If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.
- Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.
- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.
- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).
I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.
- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.
- Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).
- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”
- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...
I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).
THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION
There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.
Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.
Zubair Khan Paradigm
Ravindra Kiragi Paradigm
Craig Kreiser Paradigm
Katie Landa Paradigm
Tim Laner Paradigm
Nivin Lee Paradigm
I did debate and forensics at East High School in Wichita, KS from 2013-2017.
I'm fine with students going however fast they want.
I like to have speech docs to track arguments and key warrants.
I mainly stuck to policy and theory related arguments, but Ks are fine as long as the evidence is well cut and it makes sense in the context of the round.
I value line-by-line debate a lot, which means proper signposting and articulate argumentation is always a plus.
Dominik Lett Paradigm
tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
call me dom and use they/them pronouns
wichita state university: 2018-now
coach at maize high school
certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants
clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar
i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier
insert graph joke here
i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects
for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated
for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence
many of my preferences for fw apply here
reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling
i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded
i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve
it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - most of my experience is with structural k's (e.g. marxism/legalism) - postmodernist/associated theories will likely require a more in-depth explanation of terminology - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should probably get to weigh the plan
-soft left affs-
the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - keep in mind i have far more experience with the latter
actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated
condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff
misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly
cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks
inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence
new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity
rounds on the immigration topic
total judged: 25
aff win rate: 56%
neg win rate: 44%
Jennifer Magana Paradigm
Evan Manning Paradigm
Eisenhower High School Director of Debate
Previous institutional affiliations and role
Wichita East High School
Shawnee Mission West High School
Emporia State University
I debated from 2000-2005 at Shawnee Mission West, and Emporia State. I have stayed fairly connected with the activity since, and have ranging from a little to a lot coached teams who have finished high at national tournaments, TOC qualifiers, the DCI, and State Championships.
What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?
1.) Ensure a safe and equitable space for the debate to occur.
2.) Pay attention to both argumentation and communicative ability of all in the room
3.) Let the debater’s debate, and stay in my lane, adjudicating the round as they would like the round to be interpreted. (I am Tab)
4.) Make the best decision I am able, and can give a reasonable assessment of my methodology
5.) Try and offer advice, or clarity on the RFD and choices in the round in an oral critique
Purpose of Philosophy
I think debaters either under or overvalue who I am as a judge, and the philosophy should be a starting point of shared understanding before asking more specific questions pre round with both teams present.
Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics
I have come to dislike computer debate as per the lost time, the flashing issues, the speech doc reading, the functional clipping of unintelligible sound during speeches, sitting in cross ex, not making eye contact, the phrase “straight down the flow” and the overall lack of warrants or communicative intricacy.
Am I on the Chain?
I would take a flash of the 1AC and 1NC. Other than that unless a card is made a huge deal in the debate by the debaters, I won’t read ev after the round.
What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?
Stolen from Kelly Thompson™.
-My speaker point scale has tended to be:
29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament
28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds
28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.
27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.
27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.
**I've found that the best way to boost your speaks on my ballot is to demonstrate that you understand the nexus points of the debate and/or when the debate has resolved itself through your argumentative prowess. Often, this means strong/specific overviews, and can sometimes mean not utilizing all of your prep/speech time when the flow of the debate indicates it is impossible for your opposition to come back in the round. (EG - if the 1AR drops a topicality argument in its entirety, and you use 4 minutes of prep for the 2NR and give a 5 minute 2NR speech - you have not demonstrated mastery of the flow.
Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?
Yes I will say clear, I will say it until I feel you aren’t trying to be clearer, I will be overtly grumpy and you should know I’m no longer flowing if you were to look up.
Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?
Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?
No, the team would have to make argumentation about the evidence
What are your predispositions or views on the following:
Topicality- If the Aff is not T, it should be the 2NR
Theory- I find myself usually not pulling the trigger.
Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff- Yes, or at least a topical stasis point.
Performance teams - Possible to go for it, need to know what you will and won’t defend. I think you should make explicit how my ballot functions in this debate as well as where you defend the impacts occur and stop occuring (IE in the room, in the fiated debate world, outside the literal debate room etc.)
How do you feel about tricks?
Tricks are fun. You can slow roll in cx, you can impact turn pretty much anything, you can set up double binds and double turns and all is good. There is no such thing as a cheating argument you can’t win, just an argument that probably had a higher threshold to win. I find myself being madder at the opponent for putting me in a position to vote for a bad argument than the team that did it.
Thomas Martinez Paradigm
Jeremy Martinez-Quintana Paradigm
Amy McCormack Paradigm
Shannon Miskell Paradigm
Tim Moore Paradigm
I have 8 years of high school and college debate, and coached debate for two years at a high school. Comfortable with speed, K, debate theory, or any style, though focus on old-fashioned persuasion should not be lost. Generic disadvantages are fine, though there must be some attempt at linkage.
((edit by daughter: he does not mean policy debate experience. He did parli at Brown and was offered a coaching position at Yale, so he's good, yes, but don't read "8 years" and go "oh boy, Baud time!" Lawyer mindset, but also agrees w/ the Rev alt, so take that as you will.))
Taylor Moore Paradigm
Patrick Myers Paradigm
Antony Nation Paradigm
Name: Tony Nation
School – Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS – Assistant Coach
Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State – Been coaching pretty much ever since.
Email: email@example.com – add me to the chain
If you’re looking for LD specific, it’s at the bottom. I’d still suggest reading the whole thing.
Prep time ends when you remove the flash drive, stand up and start approaching the other team. Once they have the files, you should be ready to speak. Speech time starts after you have given me the roadmap and begin the actual speech.
I would consider myself a pretty decent flow since I use my laptop, but don’t go crazy. If you’re not clear or I’m behind I’ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you don’t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and haven’t told me that’s what’s going on. So, if you’re giving an overview up top, tell me that’s what you’re going to do.
As far as argument types and preferences, I really don’t care what you run as long as you’re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, I’m looking for offense. I can’t remember one time I’ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. I’m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless there’s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you I’m not a “stock issues” judge. I’d say that if not given direction, I would be best described as a policy-maker.
Notes about specific arguments:
All arguments have a claim and at least one warrant.
I don’t have a pre-conceived notion about conditional arguments. You probably should be prepared to debate that when necessary.
Without a very specific link, I have a hard time believing that your generic criticism means a case won’t solve at all. If you argue that there isn’t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, that’s fair. But you should probably be able to conjure up at least one similar historical example. The worst critical debates are where people just read long card after long card and then only refer back to the author/date. We’ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?
This doesn’t mean I won’t vote for “generic” arguments. I ran them when I debated and coach my teams to run them.
My best advice is to do whatever you need to do to win the round. I’m open to anything.
Other Notes: Humor helps your points. I've given a 30 only one time when I didn't laugh. I don't believe that 'cheating' counterplans are cheating. I think that it's a legitimate test of a policy to discuss when it should happen or why part of it should/should not happen. Legislatures consider both of those things, especially in committee. A clever Haiku is acceptable in the 2NR/2AR. I'd say its acceptable elsewhere, but I don't think your 1AR will have that kind of time. Impact turns? Go right ahead. If you want to tell me that it's cool for a million humans to die because it saves some rare form of slug that has cancer curing venom, go right ahead. I think it's important to weigh impacts. I have four cats. Do with that information what you will. Spec and advocate arguments work sometimes as well. It's part of critical thinking. Not all authors write with the exact same premise. Spending and politics uniqueness should probably be less than 48 hours old (well, newer than the last time we enacted new spending or a similar law.) If you're reading camp uniqueness for spending/politics, I'll be offended. Completely new arguments in the 2s will probably not win you the round. I'll give the 1AR tons of leeway since I remember that struggle. If there is a new DA in the 2 and the 1AR decides to give you a straight turn for Christmas, I'll probably give them a 30, even if they lose. At this point I'm just rambling, but you've gotten a deep insight into my mind. Make it worth your time. I'll leave you with this. If you don't do the work for me and I have to figure out everything for myself, you either won't like the outcome or I'll eventually vote on presumption.
LD – I don’t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesn’t have a defined value or criterion. You can debate that model, you can advocate a policy, multiple policies, hypotest or run critical arguments. This means you should be prepared to answer those arguments if they are presented. I also have zero preference for speed in LD. If someone goes fast and they are capable of it, then so be it. The only rules I’m going to have you follow are speech times, speech order and prep time. I recently had a long conversation about the place of counterplans in LD. I came out with a couple of thoughts. 1: If the resolution defines an actor (eg: United States) I think the affirmative should be prepared debates about other actors. Example: If the affirmative is defending the USFG should implement a policy, but it's better done at a state/local level, that's a legitimate argument for the negative. You're not going to convince me that it isn't the negative's ground without a really good reason. 2: If while researching, the negative finds a better idea than what the resolution calls for to solve a specific problem, the affirmative should be able to defend their action in comparison. If you want an example, you'll have to wait until after May 5th because I'm not giving my debater's strategy away. My point being, if the affirmative says the US should do x because it will provide educational opportunities to people who don't give them now and the negative is able to say that x is a bad idea compared to y then I think that the affirmative chose the ground and the negative found something within that ground to argue.
Jason Newman Paradigm
Truc Nguyen Paradigm
Kayla Nott Paradigm
Tracy O'Brien Paradigm
Kathleen O'Brien Paradigm
Valerie Orth Paradigm
Speaking with my daughter has really shaped me as a judge. If I can't understand the Affirmative team's plan during the first constructive then it is hard for me to root for them. I like to hear their points clearly, then the supporting evidence fluid and quick, but not mumbled. I like when the Negative team specifically identifies the stock issues or off case arguments.
If either team gets angry or offensive during a round I do not favor them for the rest of the round. I judge fairly and never allow my personal beliefs affect my decision.
Jeremiah Ortiz Paradigm
Danny Park Paradigm
Preston Peer Paradigm
"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson
Name- Preston Peer
School-Goddard High School
# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest
# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State
Currently a (check all that apply)
____Head HS Coach
X- Asst. HS Coach
X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)
Feelins bout stuff-
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.
What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.
What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.
How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.
I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.
On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.
Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.
Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.
Jennifer Pham Paradigm
Bobby Phillips Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (yes I know)
I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2018) in high school and am currently a sophomore debating at Wichita State. I've been a 2n my whole career if that matters. I primarily research and read policy stuff. My involvement with the arms sales topic is pretty limited, but I can probably figure things out. I won't know much about trends in the topic.
- I try to hold myself to the same standard I expect out of judges when I am debating. I care a lot about debate and think it's an amazing activity. I cannot promise that I will always make the best decision possible, but I can promise that I will put as much effort as possible into that decision. Debates are hard and stressful and I don't think that asking a lot of questions constitutes "charging the mound." I get frustrated with decisions too and will do my best to help you work through that, but at some point you just end up burning a lot of your own energy on something you cannot change. I won't take a post round personally (usually).
- I care about quality of evidence a lot. I won't read all the cards in the debate if no one talks about them, but in a close debate I will put a high value on a better card. I will probably read the evidence however you tell me to. Qualifications matter a lot to me. Talk about them.
- I care about cx. I tend to think of it as a speech and if no one gets anything out of three minutes of speech time then they are making a mistake.
-I think speaker points are the best way for me to reward people for things that don't alone win the debate - things like being clear, humor, being nice (you don't always have to be) will get you extra points. If i think you should clear, then I will probably give you points to reflect that. Things that make you more likely to win usually result in higher speaks, but I treat them as something different than who won/ loss.
- You can beat an argument without cards. Zero risk exists, but it rare.
- Cheap shots are fine if dropped, probs not the best if answered.
- Read your framing page, but please answer the DA too.
- If you clip you lose. I feel comfortable voting on it if they don't say anything and I notice. If you accuse someone of clipping and want me to vote on it, the debate is over. One word missed ins't clipping and you might miss a line during a card but don't use that as an excuse. That's playing with fire.
-I feel like people get lost in the "20 uniqueness cards therefore risk of a link outweighs" thing. 1% risk of a link with 100% uniqueness is still 1% risk of a DA
-Politics - Big fan. These debates, at there best, are usually about evidence quality. Strait turns are underrated - this goes for all DAs
- Read em, maybe a lot of them. Be bold, re-cut their cards, read lots of planks, do whatever, if you can defend it.
- Do your cheating stuff if you want. I am pretty okay with most things on face, that being said, process counterplans are the death of debate. Maybe you can convince me otherwise. I reject the arg not the team unless its condo or some weird shenanigans
- The 1ar needs to make a no judge kick argument or extend condo and let the 2ar make that argument otherwise I will consider the world of the counterplan or the squo vs the aff and pick whichever one is better for the neg. I won't do this if the 2nr doesn't make a judge kick argument.
- perms - they are pretty great at avoiding links. Counterplans can compete off of things other than net benefit.
- I think that quality definitions are important and can justify a slightly less limited topic if that is what those words actually mean
-Limits are not an impact alone - explain what affs they include and why those are bad. Abstractly limits can have an impact but are much better when contextualized - affs need to be more willing to say limits bad.
-fairness is pretty great, in T debates with plans I don't think it's too hard to win that it is the most important.
-reasonability doesn't make much sense to me as "come on judge, plenty of people read this aff." If they read really bad definitions to create an artificial limit on the topic, which forces us to ignore the substance of the topic for the sake of some baseless limits claim, then "reasonability" makes more sense to me. I find this most compelling as a limits bad argument which you can just make on the standards debate. It also makes sense as a framing argument that the aff can win on defense.
- Go slower here - I flow on paper (usually) and will miss important parts of your 1ar block and will not feel bad if I don't have something on my flow and you lose
- condo is probably good, but if I could be convinced it's bad. Please don't go for "three is cheating, but two is fine." One probably justifies a whole lot of condo. Just say it is always bad. The 1ar needs to answer the 2nc to keep this a viable 2ar.
-I will probably reject the argument, not the team. I have no idea why the 1nc reading a counter plan that isn't fair means they should lose the entire debate if they don't go for it. Condo is a reason to reject the team.
Framework / neg vs Ks
- People seem really concerned with bias when it comes to this section of paradigms. If you want to know, I am a policy debater and would probably go for fw against your aff if you don't defend a plan. That being said, I find myself voting aff in these debates pretty frequently. I am not going to pretend that bias doesn't exist, but if you end up with me in the back don't assume you're already lost.
- My biggest frustration in these debates is that both sides refuse to make decisions. An overview of your 1nc/2ac is not a rebuttal. Pick something you are winning and focus the rest of the debate through that.
-Don't let the neg get away with wishing all your offense away through the TVA or SSD. Make DAs that apply to a model of debate that means you cannot read YOUR aff exactly as you have and specifically when you are aff. Offense that amounts to talking about something is important can easily lose to that stuff.
-defend something. It's frustrating for the other team and the judge if you refuse to take much of a stance on anything regardless of what kind of aff you read. Do some cool stuff, you have like literally anything in the world to do so make it good. Why no link everything? You are probably impact turning most of the neg args already in the 1ac.
-Remember defense. I think that affs are always going to focus on big offensive pivots in these debates, and it makes no sense to only extend your impacts. TVAs are great, and really great when you contextualize them to aff evidence or have good solvency advocates. Explain why they solve specific DAs to framework. I think a uprising number of affs are 1NCs in disguise.
-I usually don't find arguments arguments about policy education and education about specific subject matters as compelling as more procedural arguments. Things like clash, limits and fairness seem to be a better angle to me because I think they are pretty good at link turning aff offense. I also think they take the debate more into your terms and away from things the aff is already designed to answer. Don't get me wrong, I will vote on policy education good arguments, but I think they are just less strategic.
- If you are going for a K, I would say that I'm pretty sympathetic to the neg on what exactly meets the standards of competition. That being said, the aff should still probably get perms even if this is a method debate. I feel like more things than just the advocacy statement can be grounds for competition. Cards you read, ideas you support, and impact claims you make could definitely be a reason the alt is exclusive with the aff. I know this seems like a double standard with policy affs, but really you advocate a lot more than a ten word statement.
- I think neg teams spend a lot of time focusing on having a link and answering the perm (as they should) but forget about a real impact story. A small risk of a link isn't that important if there is no real impact to it. I feel like links should just be DAs to the aff and need a meaningful impact beyond "makes the perm harder."
Ks vs policy affs
- The alt is very important to me. How does it solve your links. If it doesn't then you probably don't have a unique disad to the aff. Solve stuff and we should be good. Please do something.
-Links seem to generally be the most important part of these debates for me. An impact overview at the top of the 2nc doesn't really explain why the links matter. Give each link an impact story. Shotgunning 12 links isn't going to result in no perm if the aff drops one. Tell me what they did, why its bad or turns their other stuff, and why it's more important than the aff.
- I think the aff should get their aff. Even if other considerations are important, I don't know how the aff could ever win if they get none of their offense. I think it will a pretty hard to get me to think differently on this one. Framework is really just a question of what matters more, not if they get to imagine the aff happens or not.
- perms are an aff argument. They can solve a lot of links.
-"perms are a neg arg"
-the topic counter plan that everyone thinks is cheating this year (this is for every year)
-plans/ alts that do big things (but not too big)
Andy Powner Paradigm
Brooke Pritchett Paradigm
Taylor Reynolds Paradigm
Michelle Rodriguez Paradigm
Never Rose Paradigm
I want to be on the email chain: xo never rose @ gmail dot com
I am a debater at KCKCC and debated in high school through the MNUDL. I coach at the middle school and high school level. I will be fairly familiar with a variety of critical lit but might need help with resolutional questions (explain your acronyms)
Debate how you debate and I'll do my best to follow. I like argument comparison. I like when you pull quotes and recut your opponents cards. I like when people are strong speakers off the cuff.
Speed is fine but in high school it seems blocks will trade off with debating. CX reveals round vision and matters to me.
I follow speech docs and most often read the entire card text during prep time.
Exterior to that I have some thoughts I bring to the debate.
Theory: Frustrating to me unless fairly clear early in the debate. I don't believe in adding infinite reasons to prefer later. Suburban (TM) theory arguments still don't make sense to me. Examples include: Framers intent and T is anti-educational because it's theory.
I am not a fan of critiques without alternatives-this doesn't mean alternatives have to be clear cut but I feel like on the HS level people just refuse to defend anything. Tell me about your vision of the world or at least what your world isn't.
Affirmatives are most likely to win my ballot vs framework impact turning it// prioritizing offense. That being said I like framework esp if you have creative reasons to prefer.
Caroline Rowley Paradigm
Daniel Saunders Paradigm
I debated for four years at Andover Central high school, four years at Wichita State University (career was 2010-2018) and am an assistant coaching for Derby high school. As a debater, I have gone for K and policy arguments both. I spent my first and fourth years in college debating mostly policy stuff but my 2nd and 3rd year debating mostly K stuff. I believe it is important not to bring any arbitrary rules to judging a round and I am willing to evaluate the arguments as they are presented rather than according to some preconceived paradigm. With that said, I have a number of thoughts about debate that I default to and will do my best to lay out my potential biases.
General things - Talk as fast as you feel comfortable, I will say ‘clear’ if I can't understand you. The less clear you are, the more difficult it is for me to hear the warrants of your evidence which means I will give it less relative weight as the debate proceeds.
I really appreciate it when teams will front load their arguments by putting neat labels at the front of the explanation. Also, I'm really bad at catching author names so try to extend your evidence with some reference to the tag or warrants. Having a last name doesn't hurt but isn't really necessary. I am annoyed when a rebuttal sound more like a bibliography than a persuasive speech.
I try to review the minimal amount of evidence necessary to make my decision and won't give much credibility to warrants within evidence that weren't also extended in the rebuttals. The gist of what I'm saying here is I'm more interested in what you have to say than what your cards have say.
Charts have gotten really big recently which is good but if you think your evidence is awesome because it has a lot of charts, you should be prepared to explain what they mean and why they are good. Just having a chart in a card is not necessarily self-explanatory. Just like you have to explain your cards, you should have to explain your charts.
I believe the minimal threshold for the extension of an argument is a claim and warrant. I don't care if you think your opponent dropped something, a blip of the tagline doesn't count as extending it.
My body language isn't a reliable indicator of how I feel about your argument.
Prep time - Cross-ex is three minutes long. As soon as the timer goes off, you're entitled to stop answering the question. Please be cooperative and courteous in cross-ex. I absolutely hate it when it takes a whole minute to answer a simple question because someone is trying to show off how cool they are. If a team wants to take prep to ask more questions, the other team isn't obligated to answer those questions but can if they want to. I may stop listening after the prep time starts though.
Disadvantages and counterplans - There isn't really much to be said here. DAs and CPs are an essential component of negative strategy. Counterplan theory stuff is below.
I believe that if the negative wins a conditionality argument, I have the option of judge kicking a counterplan even if the negative doesn't make an argument. The status quo is always an option.
Framework vs Critical affs - my personal preference is that the affirmative team reads a topical plan.
I think policy teams that treat framework like T and go almost exclusively for procedural fairness are making a strategic mistake. Even if you are right that framework makes the game work, you also gotta tell me why playing that game is good. My preference is that you just have a defense of why policy debate is good because it produces some skills/subjectivities/education/etc which outweigh k offense.
However, if you have a very strong topical version of the aff, I tend to me more inclined to the purely procedural fairness version. In all other cases, you are advised to go for some type of education offense.
When executing a topical version of the aff, it is the negative's burden to show how it resolves the aff's offense rather than the aff's burden to show it doesn't. Just like when the neg introduces a counterplan, they have to show how the counterplan resolves each of the aff's advantages. The neg block is advised to have a fairly lengthy discussion of the TVA where they discuss what parts of the 1ac and 2ac they resolve and why. People act like its game-over unless the 1AR has 5 or 6 good responses. T version will probably solve some of the aff's offense but it is not a round-winner by itself. You should generally focus more on winning your education offense outweighs their business.
Theory/T - I hold the team being accused of a theory violation to a higher standard than your average judge. I feel like too often teams get away with extremely lazy or non-sensical defenses of conditionality or pics or whatever. Although reasonability versus competing interpretations is a debate you can and should have in front of me, I find myself more compelled by the competing interpretations side of things. Don't tell me about whether potential or actual abuse really occurred or not. It's not very persuasive. The better strategy is to tell me why your interpretation is better. The absolute most important argument in topicality debates is proving your intepret limits outs a certain kind of aff and those affs are bad or includes a certain kind of aff and those affs are good. Everything else are pretty trivial. The magnitude of abuse needed to justify a ballot for theory is relative and not absolute. Those thoughts apply to both topicality and counterplan theory. All that said, you have to be very thorough when going for a theory argument. Simply saying 'delay counterplans are cheating because time skew' is not enough.
Kritiks - framework - The most important move you can make in a K debate is have a clearly defined, well-defended framework argument that tells me what we are doing when we are debating. Are we comparing policy actions or are we comparing sociological theories of violence or are we comparing the effectiveness of political performances? If both teams win that their thing should be included (i.e. we should weigh plans and ontologies) it often results in impossible comparisons. How do I compare the benefits of a plan to the benefits of an ontology? Personally, I don't think that can be done. You should make sure your framework describes some role for the other teams stuff but a role that that allows for comparisons. Simply put, a neg framework argument that just says I should include ontology in my decision is useless. A neg framework that says I should exclude considerations of the plan in favor of exclusive ontological analysis is preferable. I have seen a lot of talented K debaters loss in front of me because they had an incoherent or non-existent framework argument. Don't let it happen to you.
Experience - In terms of literature, I am most familiar with Lacanian psychoanalysis, Marxism, & Deleuze but have passing knowledge of the basic arguments in most bodies of literature.
Perm - It is the aff's burden to explain why the perm solves the links rather than the neg burden to explain why it doesn't. I don't mean to say that the neg doesn't have to answer perms. You obviously should. But if the 2ac only says "perm do both" and the 1ar repeats the phase, I think of that as the same as a claim without a warrant. A better approach is to say "the perm solves link #1 [blah blah blah], the perm solves link #2," etc. Meanwhile, the neg is best served by explaining why their links are resilient to the perm rather than reading a list of generic perm DAs.
Rachelle Schrader Paradigm
Kathleen Seiwert Paradigm
James Sherwood Paradigm
Kenton Strait Paradigm
Melissa Swauncy Paradigm
Background: 1 year High School Debate (Policy). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (Worlds). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA) . 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy). Currently in my second year as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High.
Overall Philosophy: I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals . While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart.
Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE
Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.
Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.
Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time.
Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.
DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.
CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me.
Speed: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.
Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with)
Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.
Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent or partner will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.
Amy Torkelson Paradigm
Jose Valencia Paradigm
William VanScooter Paradigm
Koby Walker Paradigm
Trinity Wedel Paradigm
I did policy debate for four years at Derby High School in Kansas and this is my second year debating for Wichita State University- also my second year coaching at Wichita Northwest.
I will default to the framing arguments made in the debate. That being said if you don’t give me a way to use my ballot I default to Policy Maker. I am cool with speed but I do still think that debate is a communication activity and persuasion techniques along with judge adaptation goes a long way.
If you go for it make it the whole 2NR- I generally default to Competing Interpretations. Lit checks abuse is not an offensive reason to vote affirmative. I do accept SPEC arguments because they are basically T.
I am particularly persuaded by framework- I do think however if the 1AC is identity then you should probably go for education/policy making good and not fairness. If you wanna win vs a K aff you need to have compelling arguments why their offense can be resolved or minimized with a TVA. I will still vote for a plan-less aff, so if that’s your style... go for it.
I think condo is a voter but not if they read one CP and 7 DAs- read some impact D and stop wasting my time. In round abuse is very important to me if you go for this, also detailed stories of potential abuse would be useful in winning my ballot. I love neg CP fiat.
I don't think I lean a certain way on any other theory arguments.
Love 'em. Duh-read specific links if you have them but analytical link stories that are logical will also win my ballot. I like 2NCs on the DA and case. If you go for the DA you must start the 2NR with the impact work an impact calculus to frame the way I should filter the rest of the speech.
Also love 'em- I like the tricky ones like the delay CP (that's my shit). I'm cool with object fiat but I tend to lean aff on theory if the negative does not answer it very well- your blippy "don't reject the team" won't win my ballot. If the 2AR is just 5 minutes of CP theory that's boring.
After my first year in college debate I have radically changed my views on the Kritik. I am comfortable with K affs but I do believe you should relate your arguments with the current topic. I will probably understand the thesis level of your arguments but in depth comparisons and explanation of your theory is NECESSARY to win my ballot. I am particularly interested in the gender K's and that's what I debate consistently so that's the kind of K debate I would be the best at judging. The only way you can win my ballot if you kick the alternative is having very good ‘our link is a case turn’ arguments.
No I don't think there are rules in debate. Yes I do think you can cheat. DO NOT steal prep- I will try to find a way to vote against you if I see you do it. If you want to delete analytics off of a speech document you can use your prep time to do it. Don't clip cards. I will not accept hatefulness toward the other team however I do think snarky comments and really bad dad jokes make the debate more entertaining. Jokes during speeches are also appreciated and will probably raise your speaker points. I won't judge kick anything for you so don't waste your speech time telling me I can.