ONW Forensics Invitational NIETOC

2019 — Olathe, KS/US

Adriannia Anderson Paradigm

Policy Debate History:

1 Semester at Kansas State University- Fall 2009

1 Year at the University of Iowa- 2016

Email Chain: AndersonAudi16@gmail.com

I do not really have a speed preference, generally I can keep up, I sped when I debated. With that being said if you do plan to speed read please do speak up. However if you do decide to spread and are unclear I will stop flowing and it will fall on your shoulders to make sure I am following along with what is happening. I am open to hearing whatever arguments you are comfortable with debating.

Style Preferences:

T: I don't have a problem voting on T, especially if one team does a poor job answering it or completely bypasses it. It's a good way to make sure there hasn't been any abuse in the round, make sure you convince me why your interpretation and your standards are better for debate.

DisAds and CPs: I have no problem with either. With Disads explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1AC, impact calculus is important.

Theory: 99.9% of the time I stick with reject the argument and not the team but there is a .01% that I will vote the other way if a team out argues that the larger debate has been made biased.

K: I'm not against a K debate, I was mainly a policy debater myself but I dabbled a little bit and have judged several K rounds. Take the time to explain the alt to me. Real world impacts are much more persuasive to me. I will listen to the off the wall arguments but you may have a harder time convincing me to vote for them.

Case debate: I enjoy a good case debate. With that being said. I have seen a fair share of rounds where I have voted Aff because the negative has conceded the aff in the 2NR. Don't do this, no matter what you are trying to hammer home as your final point(s) extend your best case argument(s) over.

Really when it comes down to each round I am fine with all arguments, and try to come in with a blank page. If you are the better debaters you are going to win the round. I will vote on what I hear in that round and that round alone.

Tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it, I take the role of the ballot under consideration when voting.

Open CX is fine, flashing, and off-time roadmaps are alright with me. Don't be disrespectful, debate isn't a space for that, I won't vote against your team for it but it will go against your individual speaker points.

If you have any other questions or need clarification don't hesitate to ask before the round.

Robynn Andracsek Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Shane Billig Paradigm

I'm a traditional policy maker judge with 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I prefer a quick over fast round, but will judge all speeds. I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis. I have and will vote on kritiks, however I tend to be only vaguely familiar with the literature. Especially here you must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me. On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality. In general I will listen to your arguments, so if you think topicality should be evaluated as competing interpretations, give me reasons to do so and I will. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in.

Clayton Borrows Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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

I care far more about your ability to send an email, speak clearly and respond to arguments than which aff you are reading. 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. My most obvious and influential bias is that I am a neg judge.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. Reasonability is meaningless and ultimately begs the question of the impact. 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 much 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. Kansas debate is particularly bad about filtering quality and I am probably more "interventionist" than what many Kansas debaters have become accustomed to from judges at local tournaments.

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 4 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.

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.

Laurie Brown Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

JP Carter Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Claire Chaffin Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Misty Coleman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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.

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.

Steven Davis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Meagan Deutch Paradigm

While I did not debate in high school, I do have a lot of experience in speech and theater. I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 6 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Sean Duff Paradigm

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff obviously great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Denise Dugan Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Harold Frye Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lindsey Fuzzell Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jennifer Gilmore Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nancy Gippner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ann Goodson Paradigm

I want to be added to the e-mail chain: agoodson@usd232.org

Top Level:

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.

Claire Haflich-Hazel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julia Henry Paradigm

Add me: JuTheWho@gmail.com

**LD 2019

I never did LD and I haven't judged very many rounds of it. I will most likely be able to keep up with the arguments you are making, but I would really appreciate some judge instruction on what it means if you win certain arguments.

Updated 2/18/19

Currently debating at KU (3rd year). Debated at Hutchinson HS for four years.

Read what you want in front of me, but that doesn't mean I will know everything there is to know about the arguments you are making. I read more policy arguments than anything else, but that also doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen and vote on other forms of arguments.

I haven't judged outside of Kansas this year and I also haven't judged very many debates in general, so I know very little about this topic. Please don't expect me to know the ends and outs of every topic specific argument.

Please be kind and respectful to everyone in the room. It makes the debate space much more enjoyable to be in.

Kritiks: Preferable if they have a specific link, but as long as you win a framework argument and an impact to the link you should be fine. However, I am persuaded by case outweighs arguments if coupled with a framework argument as well. It just depends on who does the best debating.

Counterplans: Are always welcome. You should make a judge kick argument.

Disads: Again, very welcome. Remember that I haven't judged very many high level debates this year. Don't assume I know the intricacies of them. Explanation > tons of cards.

Topicality: Also, Explanation > tons of cards. In order for me to vote on T I need an impact to vote on. No offense means you don't get my ballot.

Framework: I read it a lot but don't equate this with me hacking for it. You again have to win an impact, and win defense to any impact turns they are going for. Creative TVAs are very welcome, and can be very helpful with dealing with aff offense. Aff teams, you don't need a lot of arguments to win my ballot. If you win that your impact turn outweighs their impacts or an interp that solves a lot of the negs offense, you can win my ballot.

Becky Hodson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Parker Hopkins Paradigm


Debated 4 Years at Lawrence Free High School, KS in Policy, LD, and PFD

Debated 2 years at JCCC in NDT/CDEA and NFA – LD

Currently in 3rd year at Missouri State in NDT/CEDA and finished last year in NFA-LD

Current Assistant Coach at Truman Highschool. 5th year coaching HS Speech and Debate.

Contact Info

Ask me anything


I like to be on the email chain if that is a thing that's happening.


You do you, I'll flow. I like policy args more than K args. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Don't be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging.


I like politics debates. Reasons, why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool.

Counter Plans

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me, and I have yet to have been convinced otherwise. Pics generally good, but can be persuaded otherwise. I really enjoy smart techy adv cp's. I generally think negatives should be more abusive Personally infinite condo seems good, real world etc I imagine that there is a negative strategy that I could be convinced is unacceptable, but have yet to see it happen. I still expect that the 2AC make theory args and that the neg answer them sufficiently. It is possible for the aff to win these arguments, given negative mess ups.


I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. More often than not, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Reject the aff is not an alternative, that's what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what actually happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework

I think you should be in the direction of the resolution. I don't think framework/T is violent. Reading f/w and cap against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USFG action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre announced topic helps facilitate that discussion. All of that said, I don't believe a plan text is the only way of achieving these debates goals.

Case Debates

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.


Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

Things that are bad but people continually do:

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed to give you an "edge" (let's be honest, it really doesn't help that much and there is only a risk that your judge or opponent wants to read the exact way you worded something. Removing them, is 110% prep.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off of paper, when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Joshua Jacobs Paradigm

Not Submitted

Molly James Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jason James Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dalton James Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Cameron Jones Paradigm

8 rounds

Last updated December 2018

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years in both DCI style and KDC style debate

Currently at Kansas State University but am not doing debate

please email me with further questions: cameron.jones51700@gmail.com


This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out my self (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with almost any argument you read as long as you can do the work to explain whatever link, impact, alt, etc. I should be voting on.


I did fast debate for three years in high school and judge occasionally, so please feel free to speak the speed you personally would like to. If you are going to spread then please slow down for cites, tags, and dates. Also please slow down on T and Theory. I would like to have the speech docs.


I ran T in almost every single 1NC, but rarely went for T unless it was a blatant and unquestionable violation. That being said, I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.


I also ran theory in many rounds in high school, but unless there is a debate that is expanded upon with embedded clash I probably won't vote on something that took 10 seconds to say and no further work was done on it. As for framework, make sure both teams do the work to explain why their framework outweighs the other.


I ran generic DA's almost every round in high school and won many rounds doing so. As long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.


When I had the right judge I ran quite a few K's too. I mostly ran the general K's and will understand up to a certain point. That being said- I am perfectly fine with you running whatever K you want, but if you don't understand it I probably won't be able to either. Additionally, if you are going to run a K that is not 'common' then make sure you spend a little extra time explaining the links and the alt and how it would relate to the round.

As for K aff's that aren't commonly understood- I ran one for a short time in high school and tbh probably didn't understand any of it- I think this would be okay to run in front of me if you can do the work to explain it, but if it is something that you, me, and the other team aren't going to understand then I would suggest not running it.


I like all types of CP's, I ran quite a few different CP's in high school. I like advantage CP's for solving for part of the aff. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it. Aff- make sure to do work on the perms, I really enjoy creative perms that makes the neg answer them directly. Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

~Open cross is fine within reason

~Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are NEVER okay

~Rude comments about the other teams speaking stlye, clothing, arguments, etc. are also NEVER okay

~I would like the speech docs please

Kevin Kinsella Paradigm

Current Director of Debate and Forensics (JC Harmon High School, Kansas City, Kansas)

(DEBATE - Kansas City)

(NSDA - East Kansas)

Yes, email chain - kevinjaykinsella@gmail.com


- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech. I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of "realistic impacts" or "reasonability" -- what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.
Don't fret: if the 1NC drops case on your Aff, you'll probably be fine to weigh against whatever stuff they got.

- As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:


- All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- Speed: I enjoy spreading (rapid delivery). However, this needs to be done well. Many debaters try to read quickly without being able to be understood. The purpose of speed is to make additional contentions. However. if I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, it is difficult to therefore understand the words coming out of your mouth.

- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, and assertiveness.

I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour and shade have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t in bad faith. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.


- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I will not “judge kick” for you, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that probably needs to be established prior to the 2NR. While I say that, I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingent of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not.
If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Framing is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...


-K arguments are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams. If you run a "K" because your argument is weak or you are unprepared, it is painfully obvious. The "K" that you run must have some reason that it is being run for this particular debate. If it is not relevant to the debate at hand, then do not run it. Many teams try to run a "K' (especially one that they deem as controversial and outside mainstream thought) in an effort to shock a judge and hide a weak and unprepared argument.


There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Kyra Larson Paradigm

8 rounds

Kyra Larson

Last Updated: Fall 2019
Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years (2014-2017) Attending University of Kansas Class of 2020, but I am not debating
Assistant Coached at Lawrence High School for 2 years (2017 Fall-2019 Spring)

The Basics
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.

K Affs:
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 (:

Rose Lawler Paradigm

I debated in the 1980s. While I maintained the "stock issues" paradigm for a decade or so after that, I have become more progressive. Twenty-two years of coaching have demanded it.

My coaching resume:

4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)

10 years Shawnee Mission North

6 years Shawnee Mission West

1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit

What I do not like:

someone who does not understand what "I'm about a 7" means on speed

someone who does not understand what "clear" means when they are spreading

theory debate

extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple

What I like:

topic-centered debate

real-world application

K debates where things are explained to me in a way to make me feel morally obligated to decide correctly

strong 2NR and 2AR . . .my favorite speeches!

people who are kind but assertive

Amy Legler Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Monica Loewenherz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matt Michie Paradigm

Updated 08/28/19

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Third year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is matt.michie97@gmail.com

Top-Level: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable. Use content warnings before starting speeches and put them in speech docs when applicable. Being mean to your partner is an extremely easy way to lose ranks/quals.

Speed: I think debates are better for everyone when you slow down for tags/cites/theory. Other than that, speak at whatever speed you like. I will say clear if necessary.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I'm willing to accept Reasonability dependent on how that debate goes down in-round, but surface level I think its probably a pretty bad way to evaluate T. The more time I spend judging, the more I think there is a certain truth barrier on T that can be exceptionally hard to overcome. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote for T against a blatantly topical affirmative, just that the tech level is hard to win without some level of truth to it. You should be as specific as possible about your claims. I should be hearing exactly what args/affs can or can't be read, why they're important, etc. Don't bother with your RVI.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args. Most args are probably only reasons to reject the argument. If you think a it's a reason to reject the team, you have to do way more work than just a constructive blip. I will not reject a team if the only reason I'm given for why is "X argument is a reason to reject the team".

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: I have no problem with generic disadvantages or impact turns, but a more specific link story is obviously more compelling. I mostly read/went for disadvantages/impact turns in High School, so this kind of debate is what I am most versed in.

Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with any particular type of counterplan, but Aff teams should probably be reading a lot more CP theory than I usually see. I ~generally~ think that if you don't have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC you're probably making a strategic mistake. I wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "Do Both".

Kritiks: Don't assume that I'm familiar with all terms of art/authors. I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alternatives are not very compelling but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one. I feel like most K debates I see are incredibly weak on the Alt debate on both sides, when it should probably be the most substantive part of the debate. Links of omission are not links.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps like "Competitive CP or the Squo." I default to believing the Aff's role is to provide and endorse a resolution-based advocacy but am certainly not locked into voting that way. I feel like teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read a cool interp and call it a day. Your framework lays the foundation for how I'm supposed to evaluate the round. Don't let the other team do that for you.

All of the above assumptions are dependent on the work you do in your speeches. Feel equally free to either adapt to these preferences, or do your own thing, just justify whatever you want to do in round.

Steve Morris Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Cody Morrison Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cory Newman Paradigm

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Rachel Noeth Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Caitlin Pflumm Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Melissa Reynolds Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Rinke Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Linda Rockers Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Cindy Rodriguez Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Shawn Saia Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Richard Salmen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Stephen Schuler Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Heather Seitz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mateen Shah Paradigm

8 rounds

My Debate Experience:

I debated for 4 years in high school, graduating in 2012. I was not involved in the activity from 2012-15. I've been an assistant coach at Wichita East (Kansas) since Summer 2016. I usually judge ~2 varsity tournaments per month between September and January. I regularly cut DA/CP/case negs for my teams.

email: mateen.shah (at) gmail

Please make the subject line of the email chain: "[Tournament Name] [Round Number] --- [AFF School + Code] vs [NEG School + Code]" and not "r1" or "1ac."

Short version:

I mostly judge/coach/understand traditional policy args. I don't dislike critical args, but I am less familiar with them, so my threshold for voting on them is higher than traditional args. I aspire to be the type of judge who says "do what you do best," but I'm not there yet. I care infinitely more about how you make your argument than the content of your argument.

I think I'm average at flowing.

The most frustrating part about coaching for me has been when judges give my debaters 2-3 sentence RFDs, and then they proceed to act annoyed/disinterested when my debaters ask follow-up questions or ask for guidance regarding arguments that weren't in the 2NR/2AR. Debaters work hard and deserve thoughtful feedback. Too often judges are lazy and disengaged, or opt to withhold advice because they want their own teams to have a strategic advantage in later debates. I will never behave like this post-round.

I sometimes have trouble in the 1AR and 2NR distinguishing between new args and new application of earlier args. It helps me out a lot when you justify your new stuff, explain why your stuff isn't new, and/or call out when the other team says new stuff.

How to get a 29+:

-Tell me what parts of the debate (or parts of an argument) you're winning + why that matters.

-Tell me why I should prefer your ev on contested issues.

-Read case extensions, T, CP texts, DA/CP overviews, analytics and theory slower. You should adjust your speed depending on the type of argument you're reading.

-Explicitly flag when the opposing team has dropped a 2AC arg in the 1AR, or 2NC/1NR arg in the 2NR.

-Label arguments. If something is a turn, call it a turn; if something is defense, call it defense. This should happen before the 2NR/2AR.

-Disclose past args (pre-round and on the wiki.)

-Ask thoughtful cx questions.

-Don't steal prep. Asking what cards were/weren't read is prep.

Long version:

Speed: I don't care if everything you're reading is in a speech doc. You should still be clear and go slower during overviews/tags/analytics. I use speech docs primarily to fill in author names I miss, to read contested ev during cx/prep, and/or to check for clipping. I do not read speech docs to keep up with debaters that don't understand when to slow down. I only flow what I can discernibly hear. I will likely miss arguments if you're going top speed for the entirety of your speech.

The more the I judge, I've noticed that I'm less and less inclined to say "clear." I don't think it's my responsibility, and often the debaters I do clear improve briefly, then go back to being unclear. I still do it sometimes, but I'm pretty inconsistent.

Condo: Since I began judging in 2016, I've heard one 2AR on condo. It was a really good 2AR. I voted neg.

T: TVAs, case lists, intent to define and specific DA/CP ground loss are all persuasive. I don't have a strong preference regarding competing interps vs reasonability.

Often these debates lack complete warrants. For instance, "competing interps creates a race to the bottom" needs a "because _____________." Phrases like "we are reasonably topical" and "good is good enough" are not arguments.

CP: Everyone should read CP texts slower. CPs should have solvency advocates. Process CPs suck. I really hate multi-plank CPs, especially when each plank is conditional, and there are like >3 planks because I never know what the CP is doing.

I think judge kick is my default. I am probably a bad judge for judge kick debates.

K: If your go-to strat is a 1-off K, you shouldn't pref me. I don't know very much (any) critical lit. In the rounds where I've voted for Ks, the K was relatively simple and/or the aff overwhelmingly lost the framework debate. I'm most comfortable judging epistemology Ks and least comfortable with ontology and pomo Ks.

Judge instruction, historical examples, cx and simple overviews make these debates much easier for me to follow. Tell me about the world of the alt and why it's incompatible with the aff.

2As that perm Ks should do more than say "do both" and expect me to figure out what that means. Give me a sentence or two about how/why the perm solves the link, read a card, and/or tell me about the world of the perm in the 2AC.

Links of omission and reject alts are typically unpersuasive.

If I'm unfamiliar with your K, I'm usually reading that ev during cx or prep. If I think your explanation of K (usually the alt) either isn't grounded in the ev that you're reading or is otherwise incoherent, I'm very hesitant voting for you, even if the other team doesn't explicitly make those args.

K affs: I won't get annoyed/upset if you read your K aff because you think it gives you the best chance at winning, but I have little experience in these debates. K affs are very uncommon on my circuit. I've judged 6 critical affs in my 3 years of judging, I have never read a K aff, and I have never coached a K team. My lack of exposure means that I've had little time to formulate extensive thoughts regarding how I evaluate these debates. If you have a practiced policy aff, I'm definitely a better judge for that.

Case: I think I may have a higher standard for what constitutes a sufficient case extension than other judges. Under most circumstances, I need at least 2-3 sentences about how the aff resolves its internal links in the 2AC, 1AR, and 2AR. Listing your harms isn't good enough. If the neg has to extend more than their DA impact, so do you. Something like, "The aff does x, that results in y, which resolves z" is all I want. Too many teams get lazy and ONLY say things like "1% risk of solvency means you vote aff" or "it's try or die for the aff." These are sufficiency framing args, not case extensions. Tell me why you get to that 1%.

Speaker points: I don't have a super robust way of determining speaks, but this is roughly how I assign points:

27- can't answer cx questions, no effort, no attempt at line-by-line

28- good

29- great

30- no

Things that I consider when deciding speaker points (in no particular order): effort, clarity, arg quality, ev quality, CX quality, speech doc organization, are you stealing prep, strategic kicks, demeanor during the round (to your opponents and partner,) ability to send an email, whether you're flowing.

Misc info: You should absolutely have an up-to-date wiki if you're competing at a TOC bid tournament. You should probably have an up-to-date wiki if you're competing in the varsity division at any Kansas tournament. Pre-tournament prep is good. Clash is good.

Asking what cards were/weren't read in a doc is always prep.

I am intentionally expressionless during rounds. I'm surprised more judges aren't--I think it's blatant intervention for judges to have physical reactions to arguments they like/dislike. It's also extremely condescending when judges vigorously shake their heads and sigh loudly. Don't adjust your strategy because you think you have a read on my facial expression/body language. I don't make a lot of eye contact.

An argument is only as good as your cx explanation. For example, if the neg reads a CP with an external DA net benefit, and during 1NC cx the neg team is unable to explain why the DA doesn't link to their CP, then I will not consider that DA to be the net benefit for the rest of the round. I will automatically disregard any later explanation of why the CP does not link. I apply this standard to all arguments. If you can't explain your "we meet" in cx, you don't get to magically figure it out during your rebuttals.

There's a distinction between spin and making an argument that's not grounded in your evidence. If you're doing the latter, I'm likely going to ignore whatever you're saying.

I think zero risk exists. For example, if the aff's only response to robust defense is saying, "It's try or die," I'll vote neg and blame the aff for everyone dying. You shouldn't get a W for reading a 1AC with an impact. Also, more aff teams should lose for writing terrible affs. "Your evidence is bad, and you should lose," sounds like the beginning of a case-focused 2NR that I'd be so happy to judge.

I don't think presumption ever flips. The greater the number of unresolved issues in the 2NR/2AR, the more inclined I am to vote on presumption even if the neg does not explicitly make a presumption arg.

More teams should use prep before cx.

I will keep track of prep.

I've voted on clipping each season I've judged, regardless of whether the opposing team has called it out.

It's never acceptable to use remaining cx time as prep.

I'm currently a law student, which definitely colors my reading of Court Affs/CPs/DAs. Practically, I think this means I'm more likely to be persuaded by defense (truth > tech) because internal links are often incomplete/wrong, and plan/CP texts never make any sense.

2As lie soooo much in the 2AR, and 2Ns don't anticipate/pre-empt often enough. Say stuff like, "The 1AR didn't extend a warrant for the link turn--they can't extend it in the 2AR."

Jordan Shaner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jessica Skoglund Paradigm

8 rounds

Last Updated: Fall 2018

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Assistant Debate Coach for 8 years, 6 of those at Olathe Northwest

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing. I prefer not to look at speech docs unless I feel there’s no other option.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

Anna Marie Smith Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Evan Svetlak Paradigm

8 rounds

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years in mostly open debate. I did Speech all 4 years.

Speech Coach at Lawrence High mostly acting events and Congressional Debate.

please email me with further questions: easvetlak@gmail.com


This is a working paradigm that will and should change with each round and new arguments I see. If you have any questions I would love for you to ask them to me before the round. For most arguments- if you don't understand what you are reading and can't explain it to me clearly, I will not take the time to figure it out my self (understand what you read!!) With that said- I am fine with most basic arguments and as long as you ACTUALLY do the work to explain whatever link, impact, etc. I should be voting on.


I didn't spread in high school but if you give me the speech docs I can keep up for the most part. Don't be crazy.


I really don't care if you run T and don't go for it if it makes at least a little sense. I will vote on T with a violation of the resolution but it needs to be apparent and both teams need to be doing the work and engaging in the debate to tell me what standards I should evaluate.


For theory and framework you can run the basics but it would need a walk through. I mean tell me where and why I'm voting.


Great in front of me long as you can explain to me why their aff links to a DA you can run in every round I have no problem voting on it. I like specific DA's too. With any DA make sure to explain to me the link (or many links) to the aff and do impact work in explaining why the DA is the worst case scenario. I will vote on terminal impacts. And impact turns can be very strategic if done right. This would be a good strategy in front of me.


If you're going to make this argument you have to be going very slow and walk me through it. Probably not the best strategy in front of me but if its important to you and you do it well go for it.


I like all most CP's. Again, if its complicated walk me through it. If you are going to run a CP as an off case, make sure to explain the net benefit to me (now the NB doesn't have to be a whole new DA, if you can articulate to me a creative NB I will consider it.) Aff- Arguments like no solvency work well for me on CP's.

Other notes:

Open cross is fine but don't be rude.

Dont' be Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Rude comments about the other teams are also NEVER okay. Like that will show up on your ballot.

I would like the speech docs if you're doing an email chain or in out rounds.

Collin Thompson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

David Trebra Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Donna Tulloch Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Aamer Uddin Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Taylor Weber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vivian Wellman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Bruce Wellman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kristen White Paradigm

8 rounds


I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.


My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

Allen Wilkinson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Wade Willson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Andrea Willson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted