Sunflower District Tournament
2018 — KS/US
David Abel Paradigm
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. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if i dont understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense i probably wont vote on it.
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.
Kelcy Barger Paradigm
Overview: I competed for Garden City all four years of high school. I went on to compete for Western Kentucky University in NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA LD until 2010. Since then I have judged numerous tournaments both on the national circuit as well as locally in Wichita and Kansas City. I have not, however, judged much on this particular topic and while familiar with the literature base, I am not completely immersed in it. Your best bet is to ask specific questions prior to the round. Below are some generic guidelines for when I’m in the back of the room.
Paradigm: I will default policy maker if a voting criteria is not established. Tell me where to vote and how to vote and it should be fairly simple. Furthermore, tell me where to flow your arguments. If you leave it up to me you might not agree with where I decide to flow it.
Speed: I enjoy a fast debate. Make sure your tags are clear and you understand the warrants of your evidence. If there is no change between your tags and card text I'm probably missing some critical arguments, which is bad for you. To me, speed can be a strategic decision that you should utilize as long as you understand how to do it effectively.
The K: Critical debates are fine and I enjoy them when the link is not generic and the framework is specified. I’ve voted on a number of critical/performance debates in the past and view them to be just as legitimate as traditional policy rounds. Understand your literature. If you can’t explain it well outside the evidence, then you shouldn’t be running it.
T: Love me a good T debate. In fact, I love a debate about debate. There are so many ways to run T and I feel like it’s often underutilized. You can (and should) do impact calculus on the standards line by line – otherwise what’s the point? That being said, I really dislike a bad T debate so I suppose run it wisely. I should also note that I don’t think the 2NR has to go all in on T to win the argument.
Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I don’t flow it and really don’t even listen to it. It’s not a time to make arguments. Ask your question, and make your argument during your speech time.
Theory: Yes. Use it. I flow it and have voted on it before. See above where I enjoy debates about debate. HOWEVER, tag lines are not arguments. “Perm: Do Both” is not an argument because there is no justification and explanation why it captures the net benefit while avoiding the DA. I also prefer to flow Framework on a separate sheet as it sets the stage for the ballot.
Daniele Baxa Paradigm
Kayla Benson Paradigm
Hi, I’m Kayla :)
***NSDA 2020 PFD things at the bottom***
debated 3 years at shawnee heights (surveillance, china, education)
current debater at wichita state (executive powers, space, alliances)
current assistant coach at wichita east
please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
*I am most familiar with policy style arguments but read what you want. All I ask is that you have a solvency mechanism and defend it through out the round.
*If you are problematic in round, I will drop your speaker points, and note it on the ballot.
*Don’t clip cards. In my mind that’s cheating, and you will lose.
*Tech Over Truth (in most instances)
*Easiest way to win my ballot is to have good claim-warrant-impact
*Clash is v important - I'm not a fan of when teams just read blocks, and don't engage the other team's arguments.
*Most importantly have fun (:
I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.
they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.
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 would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.
I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.
condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.
I coach PFD, however I have not judged very many PFD rounds and I have never competed in PFD. I do know argumentation though (refer to the paradigm above, most of it applies to pf). This little paragraph will mainly serve to tell you the things that I like to see in PF rounds, but I am open to new formats and strategies. I am a big fan of teams who work framework into the debate, and compare definitions. I also like it when teams discuss internal links. I honestly think PF is just watered down policy (my students told me to put I hate policy, but I won't lie to you... it's my one true love). Asking me detailed questions before the round is probably better than reading this. Have fun, and debate good. I will more than likely update this as NSDA goes along.
1. Please, Please, PLEASE have a framework contention. I think defining phrases such as "on balance" or "quality of education" are crucial to this debate.
2. I like lots of structure and organization. I flow by having a sheet for the pro case and a sheet for the con case. Telling me where to put certain arguments will make my evaluation so much easier in the end and probably benefit you.
3. The final focus should really be one big clear picture of the round and analyzing how each section of the round means that you should win.
4. Please format your evidence. I don't feel like reading whole articles at the end of the debate, and I probably won't if you send them to me like that. I only care about the section that you are referring to.
5. I am currently pursuing a degree in education, so I am really not a fan of arguments about inexperienced/young teachers being bad... its not true. I won't vote you down if you read these types of arguments but I will not be happy.
Wesley Cornett Paradigm
I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.
Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.
Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.
DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.
It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.
T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).
K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.
Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.
Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.
Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.
Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.
Haley Craig Paradigm
Justin Elwell-Cuddy 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.
Kara Fortier Paradigm
Will Fortier Paradigm
Lauren Gengler 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.
Mike Harris Paradigm
Wichita East High School -Director of Debate
(formerly Kapaun Mt. Carmel)
Congress Update for West Kansas NSDA Qualifier: prefers substantive clash and advancement of debate over key issues grounded in literature. I don't believe in the dueling oration model of Congress. NSDA national semifinalists the past three seasons.
I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita Eastl in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA circuit in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years and compete as much as Kansas will allow at national circuit tournaments. I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC last year. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:
I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.
Speed - No preference. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.
Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.
CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on perm theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory. Is there such thing as cheating?
Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision.
Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.
Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a philosophy degree, but it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science and IR. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.
Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way.
All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
James Harris Paradigm
Ruthann Harris Paradigm
Steve Harris Paradigm
Dylan Harris Paradigm
Cari Koster Paradigm
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: email@example.com
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
Paul Manning Paradigm
Head Coach --- Goddard High School
Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School
15 years experience
> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <
You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.
On-Case and Impacts
I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.
I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.
I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.
Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.
Ks / Theory
Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.
Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.
T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:
If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.
Amy McCormack Paradigm
Kimberly McWilliams Paradigm
Antony Nation Paradigm
Name: Tony Nation
School â€“ Kapaun Mt. Carmel HS, Wichita, KS â€“ Assistant Coach
Debated at Emporia State and Wichita State â€“ Been coaching pretty much ever since.
Email: email@example.com â€“ add me to the chain
If youâ€™re looking for LD specific, itâ€™s at the bottom. Iâ€™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 donâ€™t go crazy. If youâ€™re not clear or Iâ€™m behind Iâ€™ll let you know. The only thing that confuses me is when you donâ€™t tell me where you are and/or are giving some super long overview and havenâ€™t told me thatâ€™s whatâ€™s going on. So, if youâ€™re giving an overview up top, tell me thatâ€™s what youâ€™re going to do.
As far as argument types and preferences, I really donâ€™t care what you run as long as youâ€™re not advocating something offensive (racism/sexism). Spark, wipeout, de-dev, etc. are all ok. Generally, Iâ€™m looking for offense. I canâ€™t remember one time Iâ€™ve voted for someone with only defensive arguments. Iâ€™m generally not going to agree that your defensive cards are a 100% takeout unless thereâ€™s a really, really, really, really, really good reason. That being said, I can definitely tell you Iâ€™m not a â€œstock issuesâ€ judge. Iâ€™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 donâ€™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 wonâ€™t solve at all. If you argue that there isnâ€™t any version of the affirmative that will ever work, thatâ€™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. Weâ€™ve seen policy actions work in the past, right?
This doesnâ€™t mean I wonâ€™t vote for â€œgenericâ€ 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. Iâ€™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 â€“ I donâ€™t place any pre-conceived value on a particular model of LD debate. That means that someone doesnâ€™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 Iâ€™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
Kathleen O'Brien Paradigm
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 16 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
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.
Gabrielle Phillips Paradigm
Bobby Phillips Paradigm
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (yes I know). If the tourney doesn't allow it, I won't tell on you for having one.
***I don't want to use speech drop, just make an email chain****
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 debate trends in the topic.
NSDA Note - do your thing. I have been to this tournament myself and realize that panels mean you might have to do a weird mixing of styles. I have experience in more traditional lay debate from high school. It's not my favorite, but I understand if you need to or if that is your type of thing. Don't change how you debate for me. My paradigm is mostly a collection of my thoughts and preconceptions not a hard set of rules.
- I will probably flow on paper, and probably won't have any.
- 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.
- I care about quality of evidence and who wrote your card can matter a lot to me. Cards that are qualified but don't make an argument are still bad cards.
- 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.
- Read your framing page, but please answer the DA too.
- If you clip you lose.
- I think speaker points are important and are meant to reward good debating. I don't like to have a list of what earns certain speaks. I know it is impossible to be perfectly accurate but I try to make my speaks as reflective of the rest of the judging pool and division I am in as possible. If I think you should break or get a speaker award, I will try to give speaks to reflect that.
-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
- Big disad debates are great but can get messy.
- Read em, maybe a lot of them. Be bold, re-cut their cards, read lots of planks, do whatever, if you can defend it.
- Since I don't know much about the topic as far as the activity is concerned, I probably won't really have an opinion on "x counterplan is too good." This just means you need to give me a bit of an illustration of why it is so scary. My initial thought to "it beats our aff" is that you should make a better aff. If there is a real problem with it, I need more explanation than "it's hard to answer"
- Judge kick is a thing that I find difficult to deal with. I think it's probably implied by condo, but it's a lot less stressful for me if say it in the block. I try to avoid bringing my own thoughts into debate, but not having an argument happen until the 2nr makes that really difficult.
- competition can mean a lot of things, and maybe even things that aren't in the plan text. Net benefits are usually the best way to compete, but I love these kinds of debates. Not the ones that are just 10 cards that say "x = immediate" - those are sad
- I think that quality definitions are important and can justify a slightly less limited topic if that is what those words actually mean. Bad topic writing can also justify a bit more arbitrary T violations.
-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.
-I don't usually understand what argument people are even making when they say reasonability, but if you make it persuasive I guess I could vote on it.
- I am pretty convinced condo is good. If they drop it then it's bad, but don't make it the A strat. 1ars are usually way too light on this debate anyway.
- I don't think you need to answer "x counterplan is bad" if you are kicking the counterplan. I probably won't flow it, so I appreciate the break ig.
- Most of my thoughts about these are in my thoughts below, but a few general things: I tend to look for substantive things I can identify as a "thesis" of the aff. This usually comes in the form of how you solve something. If I cannot figure out that fundamental question, I will be struggling to sort anything out. You can really take whatever angle on form or content you want, but I need to have something to explain in an RFD.
Framework / neg vs Ks
- I actually really like framework debates. Everyone has a bias about this stuff and I guess if I had to take a side I would be more neg, but I vote aff in these debates more than even I thought I would. You should do you if I am in the back, but I need a strong idea what I am voting for on either side.
- 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.
- Fairness can "be an impact." Everything is an internal link, but I can and have voted on fairness outweighs. Impact turns are the way to go for the aff most of the time. Neg args about the process of debate you create instead of the subject matter you talk about is usually more persuasive to me. Things like clash seem like more strategic arguments then learning about the government is good.
- TVAs can do a lot of work, but you have to explain it. Reading a card about an aff impact is not a TVA. I think discussions of how they can solve aff education arguments on framework are more persuasive than how they can solve the aff. This is also a note for aff teams.
- 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. Links turning case can be great, but if you can't solve it you're just asking me to vote for defense to the advantage.
-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"
- putting a date accessed on your cards - if i noticed you did this and you cut the card, I will be happy
- actually "reading" cards, like with your brain, not your mouth
-the topic counter plan that everyone thinks is cheating this year (this is for every year, probably)
-agenda politics (sad atm :c )
-plans/ alts that do big things (but not too big)
Kay Premer Paradigm
Brooke Pritchett Paradigm
Leslie Redcorn Paradigm
Ruth Schroeder 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), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD), currently Assistant Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (PFD)
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.
Nelson Warren Paradigm
Kaycee Watson Paradigm
Kenzie Watson Paradigm
Joe Williams Paradigm
Brandon Willis Paradigm
Melisa Wingfield Paradigm
Stella Yang Paradigm
Please add me to the email chain: stella.yang0317(at)gmail(dot)com
Background: I am a former debater for Wichita East. I debated for four years from 2012-2016, primarily doing open debate. I've judged 1-2 tournaments a year since graduating, so I'm not super familiar with the topic.
Preferences: I prefer a moderate rate of delivery. I am most familiar with DA/CP/Case debate. Please limit yourself to 1 or 2 perms on each CP. I am not a good judge for T and K debates (that's not to say topicality isn't important). If you do run a K, please explain it well to me.
Round Etiquette: Be respectful to one another, that includes opponents and partners. I don't care about Open CX, but if 1 partner does most of the answering/asking that will affect speaker points. Don't steal prep. Don't ask if everyone is ready, everyone is ready and will say something if they aren't.