IHSSA State Debate Tournament

2019 — Ankeny, IA/US

Jacob Appel Paradigm

Debated policy four years for Des Moines Roosevelt: I really like the activity of policy debate and will be sad if someone argues that debate is bad.

First three years I defended the USFG. Final year I said screw that I've learned enough of that and want more education so I shifted to a kritikal DnG aff.

What I think in general as a judge:

Judge intervention is bad. Run what you want how you want and be prepared to defend it.

Kritikal debate is probably good for policy debate.

Policy debate is probably good for policy debate.

Fiat can be good or bad, that's a debate to be had.

You can do "tag team" cross ex.. but strategically it's better one person asks questions and the other uses CX time for prep.

Kritikal debate is not owned solely by the negative: you can run your K affs and win in front of me. But this is the Education topic, and if you begin the 1AC urging me to wake up from the matrix and chase bunnies down rabbit holes I will be amused but not impressed (and likely not persuaded). As long as your K aff has to do with Education then we're good, and on framework I'll vote for whoever wins the line by line.

If your aff is not related to the topic, then the neg should be able to run 8 minutes of framework and win in front of me, unless the neg just absolutely botches the framework flow somehow.

Your best evidence is always the opponent's evidence. Example: Their card says building space elevators would solve all these different problems, but in the unhighlighted section it also says it will cost 2 trillion dollars and is unfeasible. If you can point out situations like this, you will likely win that argument.

For younger teams: Okay so the other team dropped an argument.... Aight but you still have to explain to me what the argument is and why it's relevant to the debate. DO NOT JUST REPEAT THE PHRASE THEY DROPPED IT THEY DROPPED IT. If the aff drops T and you just say they dropped T without explaining your T shell I won't vote on it.

Arguments that you can win on but will probably cost you a few decimal points when it comes to speaks

A (or any other letter)SPEC

Spending DA

Death Good

Trump Good

The K I've never heard before and don't understand what it is at the end of the round.

Arguments that you can lose with but will probably gain you a few decimal points:

Cap K

Perm advocacy (aka discoing)

Deleuze

Ableism

The K I've never heard of before and explained well

Case Specific DAs/CPs

Show that you are passionate about the activity and I'll increase your speaks. Show me the love, not hate (anger for the other team, loud yelling, etc)

I'll keep track of everyone's time. I'm chill. No prep for flashing. But prep stealing that I see may impact speaks.

Amber Bastion Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kathy Blazek Paradigm

Not Submitted

Prakhyath Bujimala Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emma Cai Paradigm

Not Submitted

Korey Cantrell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anna Correa Paradigm

Not Submitted

Le Cox Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dave Dave Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aubrey Davidson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Day Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anthony Dehl Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ruth Dieterich Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Ehmcke Paradigm

PF:

I am borrowing excerpts of the brilliant Mollie Clark's paradigm, which are as follow:

The Rebuttal
My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. In circuit tournaments*, my preference is that teams spend full rebuttal on opponent's side as well. However, you won't be penalized for frontlining. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

The extra stuff: I study English @ Columbia, where I spend a lot of writing/analyzing/reading poetry. This is to say that I am probably not exceedingly smart in the things you would want me to be in. Be very thorough with your analysis and don't assume I know anything. That being said, I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school + qualified to the ToC my senior year. I think debate is v v important + I'm v v passionate about the discourse generated through debate and its longlasting effect on students. I'm excited to learn with you in round + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I really resist debate elitism - in both students and judges. I don't want to watch a student (or judge, honestly - this happens so much, especially reading through other judges' paradigms) flex in front of anyone else. I want the round to feel as accessible as possible, which is not to say you need to treat me as a lay judge. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible.

LD:

Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your aguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 4/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever. And yes that means I won't.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is so critical. I want you to spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation.

A note: It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if you are a privileged (white) male reading a fem K or Widerson. Not very eloquent, but you know what I mean by this.

If I didn't cover something in this impromptu paradigm, just ask me in round. Honestly, ask me anything. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't.

Also, I'm going to wait to submit my ballot on tabroom until both debaters have left the room. This means, if you fight with me after round, expect your speaks to tank.

I want to be included on all email chains david.ehmcke@columbia.edu

Hannah Ehmcke Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Ellis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jennifer Erickson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Troy Greiner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Greving Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emelia Gulck Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sophia Gustafson Paradigm

TLDR

Meaningful and intentional extensions of claim+warrant+impact in combination with weighing will win you the round. Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because."

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa. I competed at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018).

What you should expect of me


It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Framework / Overviews

There is only one specific time I find dropping overviews permissible (see below). Otherwise, dropping these is basically putting one foot in the grave on my ballot.

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense / a spike.

I do not react well to these and find them extremely abusive, but I will flow them. However, if this new contention comes out in second rebuttal the other team can just tell me it's abusive / to cross it off the flow and I will. If I cross it off, it was a waste of your time and mine.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2. I do give a little leeway and accept more cross applications on the other side of the flow to compensate for the time stretch.

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. I'm fine with defense though you have to be confident that your defense has completely obliterated all chance of your opponent's arguments and you must articulate how that was done.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary. Structurally, I prefer 1 or 2 voters not line by line. (I will flow line by line, I just don't prefer it.)

Defense in the first summary: make strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or even mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.


I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some sassy/funny jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.


I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Liz Hansen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Hayes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew James Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alexander Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dave Keck Paradigm

During the debate in all 4 phases, but particularly in rebuttal, summary, and final focus, I like to hear the use and reuse of your evidence to solidify your arguments, and tear down your opponents case. The re-mention of your evidence I find very helpful during a debate. I really appreciate if you can do a good job of sign posting and not jump all over the place is also very helpful. Some teams like to give what they call an "off time road map". I actually like this so I have a concept of how you plan on structuring your next arguments. Feel free to do this before your time starts. The summary part of the debate, I really like it if the speaker can lay out for me, why you think you have won! It's this part of the debate where you want to explain any areas that were misconstrued by your opponents. Clarify these for me. Again, restate any relevant evidence to sure up your case. Point out the flaws of your opponents and why your evidence is better. Of course the final focus, tell me what you feel were the voting issues of the debate and why your case outweighed that of your opponents.

Many of you are very skilled debaters. However, keep things simple. Try not to throw around a lot of fancy debate jargon. I am a parent judge so simple is better. Try and debate as if the person judging has no concept of the topic being debated.

Cross fires. Although I don't put a lot of emphasis on this for deciding the final outcome, I do like teams to be brief in their responses. Please don't filibuster during the cross fires. Ask a question - answer a question - and try to be courteous to the other teams. I don't mind a heated cross fire, but I don't like a team that rambles on and doesn't yield to the other team.

Try and use all the allotted time for your speeches.

In terms of appearance, I prefer that the speakers stand during their speeches. You can face me or the opponents. I'm fine with either. I also ask that you keep your own time. When discussing strategies between you and your teammate: whisper. It can be distracting if I can hear you talking. Also - speed. Please don't speak so fast that I can't write down your points and evidence. I'll do my best to keep up... but I have to understand what you are saying so don't go so fast that I can't make out what your are saying. Also speak loudly for me if possible.

Finally - have fun and be good sports! Thanks.

Eric Klingensmith Paradigm

Not Submitted

Parker Klyn Paradigm

Just win baby

Jack Lucas Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mary Jo Miller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adrian Mitchell Paradigm

I am a former public forum debater. When you make arguments, make sure you understand what they mean. Impacts are always benifical throughout the entire debate. But extend the argument not the card. If you believe you have won a point, you should be able to summarize why you have into a brief statement as opposed to not mentioning it. By the end of the final focus I should have a clear presentation of why your team won the round. If you use evidence in the round, please have that evidence ready to be shown in case it is called for by the opposing team or me.i will give a verbal RFD about what need to be worked on or give suggestions for possible help.

Please be respectful, speak well, and remember this activity is one for education and fun

Loan Nguyen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Greg Rivers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elliot Sheaff Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jenipher Sutherland Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sydney Thelen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Manda Thomas Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tyler Tigges Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lee Tjelmeland Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Upmeyer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ben Vaughn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Weinreich Paradigm

Experience - I am a coach, though we specialize in congress and public forum. I have coached and judged LD before, though it has been a while (about a year). As for techniques and terminology, I know most of them -- and if not by name, through context.

 

General - Build me a good case - solid framework, well supported: convince me. 

Evidence/data is good but is not my sole judging criteria. Logical argumentative techniques bolstered by evidence is your best route. Make sure I can follow (flow) your organization - signposts, transitions, etc. 

That case should also be well-communicated. Impressive as a spitfire stream of data is, that's not effective commmunication. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas didn't spread; neither should you. I don't mind some speed as I know there's a lot you want/need to say, but again, make sure I can flow your argument. The faster you go, the less I can flow.

Be civil. 

Judging/Win - I vote on argumentation first, evidence second, structure and delivery third, and civility final. A weak speaker with a solid organized case will win before a strong speaker with a weak or is organized case.  

 I also don't disclose unless required and generally only give comments orally at the end of the round if something stands out as really weak or really strong and it is necessary to fix or continue into the next round.

Hannah Woerner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elijah Wyant Paradigm

Not Submitted