2019 — Lansing, KS, KS/US
JOSH ANDERSON Paradigm
PATRICK ATKINS Paradigm
ZACH BOLIN Paradigm
DEVON BRESSER Paradigm
Brian Box Paradigm
I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North. I previously coached at the University of Kansas. I was a policy debater at Wichita State University (2012) and Campus High School. I have taught camp at Kansas or Michigan every year since I graduated and typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pfd/ld/speech.
email chain: brianbox4 @ gmail
The affirmative team must demonstrate that their inherent proposal, which is an example of the resolution, can solve the significant harms they have identified, or challenge the desirability of doing so, to win the debate. The negative team must win that the affirmative has not met their burden in at least one of these areas to win the debate.
I care far more about your ability to send an email, speak clearly and refute arguments than the aff you read. I am a "policy judge" in the strictest sense, but that has far more to do with my experience in debate than any desire to hold the line for a certain style of argument. I am too old, too tired and consider the stakes of a given high school debate too low to fight any kind of ideological battle. I do not care what kind of arguments you read. My most obvious and influential bias is that I am a neg judge.
Competing interpretations should guide your topicality debating. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.
Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. Application of author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore or discount poorly supported arguments.
Either get good or get good at going for theory. Judge kick is the logical extension of conditionality. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Have yet to hear a good reason why 4 conditional is worse than 3 is worse than 2. I am more likely to vote aff on an objection to the competition of a counterplan than I am an argument about limiting the scope of negative fiat. Obviously the two are not entirely separable. This is not me saying "don't go for theory," this is me saying that your theory argument needs to be more than simply describing what happened in the debate.
I cannot emphasize enough how much clarity matters to me. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.
Lose the computer. Probably the single biggest thing that will cause your points to go up or down in front of me is the amount of time you spend reading into your computer screen at a rate that is impossible for me to flow vs. the amount of time you spend using your flow to identify and respond to arguments.
The link usually matters the most. I typically care more about the link than other parts of the argument. Framework or alternative solvency do not reduce the salience of the link. Evidence is important here. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.
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 – firstname.lastname@example.org – 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.
Carolyn Cook Paradigm
I certainly have arguments that I enjoy and am more comfortable evaluating than others, but I also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. I also dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.
I am most comfortable functioning as a policy maker. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff. Understand that I have less experience evaluating critiques, so unorganized debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with and expect me to evaluate literature that I have little experience with and you do little work on become frustrating.
You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.
Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments and their interactions with your opponent's make debates better.
I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.
I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.
Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.
I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003. I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I am the director of debate at Lansing High School where I have coached and taught since 2009.
JEFF DAMETZ Paradigm
Steve DuBois Paradigm
Ann Goodson Paradigm
I want to be added to the e-mail chain: email@example.com
I'm the head coach at Mill Valley High School in the KC suburbs. My squad is very young and I didn't debate in college, so talk to me accordingly, please. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to provide a plan text. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. I very much believe debate is a game where nothing "real" ever happens, and as such, we need to treat it like a game and be nice to each other. I don't want to see teams being hateful during the round--that will result in speaks being dropped and, if it's bad enough, losing the round. (Note: if bad behavior happens, get it on the flow--explain why I shouldn't vote for the team behaving badly and warrant it out).
I prefer if you slow down slightly on tags and author/dates, but other than that go as fast as you want, as long as it's clear. I'll say "clear" once, and if I still can't follow I'll stop flowing. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story.
I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. I enjoy T and am excited for the T debates I'll get to see this year.
I'm unfamiliar with this but will totally vote on it. Do whatever you do and I'll try to keep up.
These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan. I really dislike Delay, Conditions and Consult PCs, but go for whatever if you feel like you can convince me. I won't automatically vote against any of the above, just know you'll have to really sell me on it.
This is the argument category with which I am least familiar, but I've voted on them in the past. I don't hate K-affs or Ks, but assume I'm unfamiliar with the texts you're referencing. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. That said, I enjoy seeing them, so go for it.
Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.
I'll vote on this. Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.
Anything else, just ask.
BERNADETTE HALE Paradigm
JENNIFER HAWK Paradigm
JERROD HAWK Paradigm
NATASHA JENKINS Paradigm
SARA KILPATRICK Paradigm
Ken King Paradigm
I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.
I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.
Flash Time: In Kansas, I’m pretty strict that if you are flashing to the other team, it needs to be done in a very reasonable time, if flashing between partners, that is prep time. When judging on the National Circuit, I allow it to be done however that circuit accepts as the norm. please don't abuse flash time
I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!
Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.
Critiques- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.
Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..
Critical affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…
COLTON LAUBER Paradigm
MARK LAUBER Paradigm
Kyra Larson Paradigm
Last Updated: Fall 2020
Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years (2014-2017) Attending University of Kansas for my PhD
Assistant Coached at Lawrence High School for 2 years (2017 Fall-2019 Spring)
*I have yet to judge virtually, so whatever that entails bare with me, because technology and I aren't friends.* (And no that does not make me an incompetent judge)
1. First and most importantly tech over truth (almost in every case, exclusions at the bottom)
2. I'd rather you explain the warrants of your evidence, than reading 3 more cards that say the exact same argument
3. I can comfortably keep up with fast debates, they are what I preferred in high school, but go at what pace is best for you. Don't spread if you can't do so clearly
4. Affirmatives with excessive advantages/impact scenarios and/or extensive negative strategies are acceptable, but preferably the debate will condense at some point
5. Dropped "blippy" arguments can be voters i.e. Fiat is illusory and such. If it is dropped and the original argument included a warrant, a claim, and a voter I have a uniquely low threshold to vote on it as it was dropped - overall it depends on how said argument affects the debate
6. I will default to weighing the K against the aff if no other framework arguments are made
Any strategic 1NC will run a T arg, that being said while I often extended it into the block it was a rare 2NR for me. It's very possible to win this debate, but it is very technical and the violation needs to be justified. There is an argument to be made for both competing interpretations and reasonability. You're losing in the 2AC if you fail to have both a we meet and a counter-interpretation. I've found that education and fairness are both highly valuable, and based on the debating have voted in favor of both. Standards-wise limits and ground are your best bet if you're doing something else, why? Do not run an RVI in front of me I'll be annoyed and simply question why such a stupid thing is occurring
Specifics DAs will always be preferred to generics, but I understand the need to run them and will likely vote for them often. Bringing a DA into the block should include an overview, as much turns case arguments you can manage, and a lot of impact work. The Politics DA was my favorite and most frequent 2NR in high school. Just bc I loved them and they bring me joy doesn't mean I know your hack scenario, so please explain. All DA debates should include discussion of uniqueness, link, and impact
Every CP you could think of is acceptable to run in front of me. CPs in the block should include overview of what the CP does to solve the aff. The affirmative team-the more creative the perm the more rewarded you will be, but it MUST be supplemented with explanation that isn't prewritten blocks from camp that you spread at me. Doesn't solve arguments are definitely your best bet. Negative-I won't kick out of the CP for you sorry not sorry do the work.
It is critical that there is link and alt articulation. If the negative team is failing to engage the aff's arguments that is the easiest way for a K team to drop my ballot. When it comes to the K line-by-line is essential. I'm extremely comfortable with Kritiks though-it was ,after the Politics DA, my most common 2NR in high school and the argument I often took in the block. I'm well-versed in Fem, Legalism, Neolib, Heidegger, and Colonialism.
I'm comfortable keeping up with fast debates. Take it back a notch on tags, T, and theory please. I'll say clear once and then if you continue to be unclear your speaks will suffer.
More often than not Condo is good, but the aff can also win this debate. Other than that I don't hold many other default theoretical positions and tech over truth means these debates usually come down to technical skill.
If the right judge was present I would read these in high school. They're educational up to the point you can relate it to the resolution. Framework is the best argument against them
1. Open cross is accceptable, but nobody is going to like it if you're all yelling over each other at once
2. I want the docs however they're being exchanged
3. Jokes and some non-targeted sassiness is humorous, but only in regards to arguments. If it's at a debater you're going to be very sad when you see your speaks
4. Death good was an argument I ran in high school. I'm adamantly opposed to it now. If you run this argument in front of me you will lose the debate no question
5. Have questions? Email me or just ask in the room (: