2019 — Lansing, KS, KS/US
HOLLY ABBOTT Paradigm
MIKE ASHFORD Paradigm
GINGER ASHFORD Paradigm
PATRICK ATKINS Paradigm
JACK BRESSER Paradigm
JENNIFER BRUNER Paradigm
Jamelle Brown Paradigm
Name: Jamelle Brown
Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School
Debate Experience: 18 years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college
List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.
1. I appreciate real world impacts.
2. If running a K or critical Aff, make sure you explain it. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.
3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters.
4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.
List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.
1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.
2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.
List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.
1. I prefer medium-speed speaking.
2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!
3. Let me see your personalities in CX.
4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.
5. I am excited about performance teams!
List stylistics items you do not like to watch.
1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.
2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!
In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.
Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.
Azja Butler Paradigm
Lansing High School – 2018
University of Kansas – 2022
Assistant Coach for Lansing High School
Paradigm Last Updated – Fall 2019; 09/23
Email – email@example.com – Put me on the email chain :)
I was a policy debater in Kansas all four years of high school. I am currently debating at the University of Kansas, and attended the Jayhawk Debate Institute for three summers while debating in high school.
First & Foremost -
Do whatever you can to win the debate. I, obviously, have my opinions about certain arguments, but am competent enough to follow and adjudicate whatever. Spread, don’t spread, I have to listen to you regardless and am aware of spreading as a debate practice. Just know that I am comfortable “clearing” you if I can’t understand you. Please, check your privilege and be aware of how you can affect this space for someone else. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and won't end well for you. Lastly, if you lose the debate and are unhappy with my decision, more than likely that is your fault for not sitting more on a certain argument or not explaining something better to me. I will do my best to make my decision clear and concise so that loss won't happen again:)
General Debate Things -
I think the AFF should respond to the resolution in some way. That can be you critiquing it, reading a plan, not reading a plan ... I don't really care how, but you should warrant out why the way you're choosing to/not to engage the resolution is good. I love framework and topicality. K's are not cheating. I will vote on theory if impacted out well. I'm pretty indifferent towards PIKS/PICS - you could persuade me either way. Same for questions of conditionality. The less the AFF can be leveraged against the counter-plan to more cheating it probably is, but that's a debate to be had I suppose.
I am familiar with these arguments and spend a lot of time working through performative strategies. I am always down for something new, so bring it! Judge instruction and strong defense of the performance is key. I think an explanation of your performance's relationship to debate is useful and would probably be good for you. At the end of the debate I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless. If debating a performative AFF/NEG in front of me do your best to engage it and DO NOT PANIC (otherwise you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage).
I spend a lot of time thinking about this argument and really appreciate a good clash debate. This might be a hot take, but I think fairness is more of an internal link to education and other framework impacts. However, I think that if you win that debate is in fact a game and nothing less ... then, I could vote on fairness as an impact that must be preserved for the game's sake. Both teams need a solid defense of their model. At the end of the debate I should be able to explain the model I voted for to the other team and why I thought it was better for debate. While I don't think it's impossible to win my ballot saying debate is bad, you will need a robust defense of your physical presence in this space for this to be offense for you. Other than these thoughts you all should be able to let loose.
I am the most comfortable here. I am more knowledgeable of things like neoliberalism and anti-blackness because those arguments are closer to what I run personally. However, that doesn't mean I am incapable of evaluating K's of security, bio-power, settler colonialism, queer theory and other K's of identity. I am not as well versed in post-modern theory (i.e. baudrillard, dng, or nietzche). If I don't understand the argument I have a hard time believing I'd be able to evaluate it to your standards, which means reading it is at your own risk and will require a THICC uphill battle of an explanation to get my ballot. I am of the opinion that, while some of the beauty of K debate is the complexity of the theory, the simpler the explanation the better. At the end of the debate I should understand why the AFF/Resolution is uniquely problematic so explain your links. I think voting for the K should resolve the link(s) you've presented. If you kick the alternative and go for the linear DA that should be apparent and justified. For the AFF: Strategic framing of your permutation and your AFF is a good idea. Explain why you get to weigh your impacts against the K. You did read 8min of offense, so use it. Solvency deficits/ DA's to the alternative are really persuasive and are underrated in my opinion. Vague ALTs being good or bad is definitely a debate to be had. If you read a K AFF - go for it - I feel like all of my above opinions still apply.
I've worked most with politics, but don't cut a lot of these arguments. I will read the ev and depend heavily on impact framing to make decisions about how the DA should be evaluated. I think all parts of the DA are important and are required to win my ballot. Winning the uniqueness of the DA and its impacts are important when I am weighing the risks between the AFF and the NEG. Clear link and internal link explanation is a must and has the capacity to shape the uniqueness debate for sure. At the end of the debate ... ok fine this impact happens... why does it matter more than the AFF? Why should it be prevented first? These are questions I think need to be answered to win my ballot. If the DA is dropped then winning it becomes a lot easier, but doesn't necessarily mean an auto win.
My experience with counterplans is more in the realm of PICS and 'performative' counterplans than anything else. I think this means I probably am more receptive to counterplan theory, but these arguments MUST be impacted out in terms of why they are a bad practice for debate. I think the permutation and "counterplan links to the netben" arguments are probably the most persuasive to me when answering counterplans. I think the counterplan text should do something and probably gets fiat. However, I think a theory argument could be leveraged and persuade me otherwise. I probably default to sufficiency framing. I think the biggest thing here for me is I want to know what the counterplan would actually do and why it subsumes the AFF’s offense/resolves the AFF impacts. All of that being said... this is the area I work the least on so your debating of it must be FIRE.
STEVEN CAMPBELL Paradigm
ARIC CLEMENS Paradigm
ALLISON CLEMENS Paradigm
ANTHONY CLOUSE Paradigm
MIKE CRUTCHFIELD Paradigm
SABRINA DARLEY Paradigm
BRYNNA DARLEY Paradigm
JULIE DAVIS Paradigm
NATASHA DAWSON Paradigm
KEVIN ELMER Paradigm
SCOTT ESCALANTE Paradigm
ANGELA FITZHUGH-COLLINS Paradigm
BERNADETTE HALE Paradigm
YVONNE HALL Paradigm
JERROD HAWK Paradigm
JENNIFER HAWK Paradigm
JULIE HINCKLEY Paradigm
ANDY JOHNSON Paradigm
JANINE JOHNSON Paradigm
SARA KILPATRICK Paradigm
MARK LAPEE Paradigm
JAMES LONGACRE Paradigm
BARBARA LOTT Paradigm
STEPHEN MALEC Paradigm
TONI MCCALL Paradigm
KAREN MILLER Paradigm
MARK MILLER Paradigm
SHARON MUELLER Paradigm
SCOTT NAUMAN Paradigm
JUNE NEAL-HARRIS Paradigm
AMY NEIDIG Paradigm
GREG PAPINEAU Paradigm
Jennifer Quick Paradigm
I started debating in 1987 at SMN, and I have been a member of the KS debate community since. I can judge speed, but I prefer quality content to spreading.
Clash is essential; listening to the other team is key. Crisp/smooth signposting is divine. I vote on thoughtful, considered, reasonable impacts. T has to be obviously delineated violations; otherwise, I think it's a time suck.
Other questions? Please ask. I prefer well-researched policy structure to K debates.
EVERETT ROBBIN Paradigm
KELLY SCHROEDER Paradigm
MADDIE SNODGRASS Paradigm
LISA SNODGRASS Paradigm
CHRISTINE SOUSER Paradigm
WILLIAM SOUSER Paradigm
DAVE SPRICK Paradigm
JERI STEPHENSON Paradigm
CARL STRICKLAND Paradigm
CYNTHIA STRICKLAND Paradigm
Eric Skoglund Paradigm
Updated September 2020. Yes email chain - eskoglund AT gmail.com
I debated in high school at Olathe South, briefly in college at the University of Kansas, and am currently the Director of Debate at Olathe Northwest High School in Kansas where I am in my 15th year of coaching high school debate, primarily on a local circuit.
Everything you read here is a default position, and I can be argued out of nearly anything you see below. Like many of my peers, as I get older, I find I have become more concerned with the truth value of the claims you're making. Your evidence and spin are obviously major components of shaping my understanding of the truth in the round.
I think the aff has a burden to relate to the resolution. The easiest way to achieve that is to propose a plan for policy action. Whatever your advocacy, all affirmatives obviously need to be prepared to defend why their approach is best for debate. Even absent specific negative argumentation, if I end the debate unclear about the meaning of an affirmative ballot, I am likely to negate on presumption.
By default my negative ballot will stand for supporting whatever is advocated in the 2NR. I will not judge kick without a bit of theoretical reasoning as to why that's appropriate for me to do; if the counterplan is in the 2NR, then I tend to believe that a negative ballot is a vote for the counterplan. I tend to think of K alts in much the same way I think of counterplans; you will benefit from explaining who is the subject of the sentence of your alt, and what the verb of your sentence means operationally.
Don't clip cards. If you can't read at the speed you want without clipping, then read slower. I will usually ask for your speech docs and will only be using those to monitor clipping and to evaluate evidence quality when it's in question, NOT to fill in my flow. In a virtual debate world, I will also use speech docs to fill in if Internet connection issues prevent me from clearly hearing your speech.
I won't say "clear" but will give you obvious nonverbal communication if I'm not with you.
Keep track of the cards you do and do not read from the speech doc, and where you mark the cards that you mark. Sending bloated speech docs that are three times what you know you can handle is a bad practice for debate. Functionally trying to trick your opponent and/or judge into believing you read a card you didn't read is really bad and is probably over the line where I start to find ways to vote against you.
Theory, overviews, and other things where you want me to listen to every word you are saying should be presented more slowly than reading evidence. Failure to do this will probably result in you asking me questions after the RFD such as "how did you evaluate this argument" and my answer being "I didn't because I didn't hear you make it". That's a frustrating time. Try to avoid it. I'm a pretty good flow but I can't transcribe full text at 350 wpm.
I like kritiks better than my reputation would probably tell you. I'm not very well read in the literature base as most of my teams tend towards the policy side of the Great Divide. I am more likely to comprehend your alternative if it literally functions within the debate space (as in a reps type situation) or if it can be imagined as some kind of a policy choice. If your A strat is to read a high theory K that relies upon me knowing Baudrillard as well as or better than you, then well I hope you have a B strat because that will be really hard for you.
I will vote on topicality and tend to prefer a competing interpretations framework. I will generally evaluate "reasonability" as the idea that there can be multiple acceptable interpretations. If you don't meet any interp in the round, you probably aren't "reasonably topical". I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded that topicality ought not be a prior question to my decision, but you're certainly welcome to try.
In order to be a viable argument, theory needs to be contextualized to the round in front of you. If you're just reading robot blocks back and forth, I'm not likely to do a whole lot of work to try to help you.
I don't think that you need to necessarily spend all 5 minutes of your final rebuttal on T or theory in order to win my ballot, but this is definitely dependent on how the argumentation has developed throughout the round.
Fundamentally, too many teams assume they're winning every argument and so they don't frame arguments in the "even if" layers that are so important to accessing your judge's understanding of what's happened in the round. The more you can break free of this, the better you will be.
Current Events in Debate
I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.
I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. However, I am generally unconvinced by disclosure theory as an argument in the round, especially if you rely on first establishing that X level of disclosure is the correct level.
A lot of you aren't flowing. Or you flow from the speech doc. That's a bad idea. Your speaker points will suffer mightily if you respond to arguments that were not presented - and even worse if you answer an argument the other team explicitly conceded.
The current trend of massive pre-written overviews doesn't work well for persuading me. Overviews are good but I would prefer they simply be a summary of the arguments you're extending in the context of the current round, then more line by line as you move down the flow. I think you usually shouldn't be reading a bunch of cards in an overview. I know this is a dinosaur thing to say but it's how I understand the round so there it is.
I very strongly prefer line-by-line argumentation to "whole sheet of paper" approaches to a debate. Through the choices you make, I want to see interaction with THIS round and THIS debate. A pre-written 1AR/2NR/2AR overview will usually nuke your speaker points, doubly so if I identify the same text between the 1AR and 2AR.
I can handle speed and policy-style argumentation, but I may be a bit cranky about them. I do believe that LD is a distinct event from policy debate and should be treated as such. In this limited time frame, you will do best to focus on a clear thesis that you can demonstrate to me that you understand.
My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.
Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.