ONW Forensics Invitational NIETOC
2019 — Olathe, KS/US
Kerry Amerio Paradigm
Robynn Andracsek Paradigm
Sarah Bahr Paradigm
I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.
In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.
My paradigm for judging is as follows:
Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.
Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case
Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round
Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.
I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.
I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.
Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary
My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments
I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.
I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.
If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.
Crysta Baier Paradigm
Karla Bard Paradigm
Gary Bard Paradigm
Justin Barron Paradigm
Deanna Barron Paradigm
Leah Barron Paradigm
Katy Beaudoin Scott Paradigm
Andrew Booze Paradigm
Clayton Borrows Paradigm
David Boswell Paradigm
Annette Bradbury Paradigm
Samson Brandes Paradigm
Joshua Brandes Paradigm
Jessica Brewer Paradigm
Mary Briscoe Paradigm
Jessica Brooks Paradigm
Brian Brown Paradigm
Laurie Brown Paradigm
Jamelle Brown Paradigm
Kelly Burnham Paradigm
JP Carter Paradigm
Wendy Carter Paradigm
Chris Chaffin Paradigm
Dale Chaffin Paradigm
Claire Chaffin Paradigm
Kenny Chan Paradigm
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.
Amanda Courtney Paradigm
Debate - When I judge debates based too much on misrepresentation or manipulation, I recommend debaters research the various fallacies I witnessed in the round - most often slippery slope, ad hominem attacks, false dilemma, and straw/steel man - if only to ensure otherwise amazing debaters don't fall back on flawed logic in the future.
Ultimately, it is up to the opposition to detect and decry these somewhat nefarious methods, but I also feel strongly that debate should center on fundamentally-sound logic, whether it's Policy, LD, PFD, or Congress. Fallacies are to debate as cheat codes are to video games: the only ones impressed by that sort of victory are those that don't know better. If either case hinges too heavily on fallacious reasoning, whether the opposition realizes it or not, you will see it noted on the ballot.
Also, it's another unpopular opinion, but spreading seems more often than not to unnecessarily negatively impact an otherwise well-articulated and supported case. Speed for its own sake seems to be the shibboleth of varsity debate, and judges expressing misgivings about it are often chalked up as lay judges. Really, many of us are just of the mind that one should learn to do something really well before doing it really quickly: as is so often the case in life, quantity rarely trumps quality. The side that presents and defends the most sound, organized, and professionally-presented case will win the round!
Visit this link for more helpful info on the fallacies:
Forensics - I tend to reward originality and intensity above almost every other factor. As a competitor in high school, I was awarded first at State the same year I qualified for Nationals in Original Oratory. I medaled throughout high school in various interpretation events before going on to serve as a Student Senator in college. I have always enjoyed and still tend to favor those performances in which the student's own unique ideas and interpretation takes center stage. Cliche, especially after these many years of judging, is a nearly unforgivable sin. POI is my new favorite event. I'd love to see more policy debaters doing extemp, oratory, Congress, and Big Questions. I look forward to this season's competition!
Josh Dale Paradigm
I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I am an attorney and an assistant debate coach at Shawnee Mission North.
Since I flow on paper, you may want to slow down. Please be clear while speaking. If I stop flowing, you are not being clear enough. I do not want to be on your e-mail chain. I am holding you accountable for the articulation of all arguments. I am not simply going to follow along on a laptop while you arguably read the entirety of the cards.
I am open to all forms of argumentation EXCEPT critical arguments. If you make a critical argument, your team will lose.
Please don't try to shake my hand.
Please be nice to each other.
The grumpy old man who wants you off of his lawn
Lindsey Daley Paradigm
Tanya Dalrymple Paradigm
Jeff Dalrymple Paradigm
Jenny De Cicco Paradigm
Pete DeCicco Paradigm
Monica DeCicco Paradigm
Jack Delehanty Paradigm
Sean Duff Paradigm
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
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.
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.
Tim Ellis Paradigm
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Debated at Manhattan High School
Email chain - email@example.com
First thing is first, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.
Tl;dr - I judge quite a bit, about 100 rounds last year, and am generally pretty familiar with the topic from coaching and working at camps. As a competitor I gravitated toward plan oriented affs and CP/DA strategies on the neg and have coached teams who debate similarly, but I am open to you debating however you would like to. I have literature deficiencies in some areas that make me less knowledgeable of certain strategies. I am also a teacher who believes in debate as an educational activity, so I am generally open to listening to you debate in whatever fashion you're the most comfortable.
If you would like to know more specifics, they are below.
Topicality: I feel like topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. I have seen a lot of 2ARs recently where the aff doesn't extend a terminal impact to their counter interp. I pretty much always vote neg in these situations. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability alone is not an argument that makes sense to me, absent an offensive argument. Good is good enough is nonsense - if you are close to beating a DA, I'm still going to vote neg. If you want to utilize a reasonability argument more persuasively, I would suggest that you frame it almost like sufficiency on the counterplan and have an offensive reason that inclusion of the aff is good. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull. I am growing weary of affs that obviously defend a certain agent with their solvency advocate and advantages but will not defend that agent when debating an agent counterplan. Stop this and defend your arguments please.
Framework: I find that framework debates to me are usually an issue of fairness. I find myself generally not super persuaded by the value of topic education vs the value of whatever educational outlet the affirmative has chosen to discuss is. The aff usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. Fairness is a bit more contestable from the negative perspective, in my opinion. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a very good judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. Regardless, I also think that the aff has a better chance by focusing most of their time on impact turning framework and then using the directionality of the aff toward the topic in order to win some defense against the negs framework claims.
Theory: Most theory debates are people reading blocks back and forth and are totally useless. I usually default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule, but it has been a long time since I saw a team ready to debate condo very well.
Kritiks: I am not as familiar with the literature base for this style of argumentation. That doesn't mean I don't vote on the K, it simply means that you need a little more explanation for your argument than you otherwise might. I think that good K teams are able to contextualize their argument with the world of the affirmative. Recently I've judged a bunch of K debates where the links all seem to be descriptions of the status quo, but the affirmative is not very good at winning that the aff is in the direction of the alt. If the neg is going to try and go for just framework and a link/ethics argument, I think it is important that they focus a substantial amount of time on the framework debate, and try and have an interpretation of framework that is not completely arbitrary and should try and win that there is a unique link to the aff. If you are able to win framework and a unique link then you're probably good without an alt. If you are going to go for an alternative, it is probably important that you explain to me how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative, otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. Be descriptive of how the alt functions. I have also found myself recently voting for the aff in the vast majority of debates where the 2NR does not have a thorough contestation of the affirmative. You don't explicitly have to go to the case pages, but you should definitely be calling into question the truth of the 1ACs internal link chains or the efficacy of it to solve the problems that it seeks to solve.
Disads/Counterplans/Case: These are the types of debate I am most familiar with. I think the case debate is under utilized, and that the education topic may have been the worst thing in recent memory at teaching people to debate the case. I wish that more teams would focus on the internal links to the aff advantages instead of just reading impact defense and hoping that a DA outweighs. I think delay counterplans are cheating. Conditions and consult counterplans I can easily be convinced are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps.
Things I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means. Evidence comparison. Debaters who don't read off their computer for the whole debate. Debaters who are funny/having fun. Warranted arguments/smart analytics. Well thought out strategies.
Things I dislike: Bluetooth speakers, must define all terms, running arguments you don't really understand, death good, topicality = genocide, general rudeness, stealing prep time, and clipping cards. If you enjoy doing these things, you probably don't want me to judge you.
Disclaimer: I love the activity of debate, and think that it is a place where all types of debate styles/debaters should be welcome. If you are excessively rude to the other team (laughing during speeches, being disrespectful in cross-x, etc) I will let you know. If the behavior continues, there is a strong chance that I will vote against you on principle.
Bryse Emch Paradigm
Lise Emch Paradigm
Brent Emch Paradigm
Lora Enfield Paradigm
Richard Fabac Paradigm
Etta Farney Paradigm
Codi Fenwick Paradigm
Clearly outline arguments
Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD
Shea Friedel Paradigm
Lindsey Fuzzell Paradigm
Clint Fuzzell Paradigm
Lauren Gengler Paradigm
Nancy Gippner Paradigm
Andrea Godwin Paradigm
Missy Greene Paradigm
Kate Guimbellot Paradigm
Claire Haflich-Hazel Paradigm
Megan Hagaman Paradigm
Current Coach: Salina South HS
Former Coach: Abilene HS, El Dorado HS, Buhler HS
College Competitor: NPDA and NFA LD
High School Policy 4 Years (I debated in the glory days of Champ Division. I’m getting old.)
I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round. (That means speed is fine in most cases. You will know if I can't understand you or can’t keep up. I’ll put my pen down. You may want to look up and check if you’re real speedy or at least have your partner check.)
I’m a fan of following the line by line, so you should tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and more importantly tell me why it matters (Impact Calc). I believe in the Toulmin model of argumentation and think that your evidence should matter and be of good quality with data and warrants and you should be able to articulate that information. Extending Claims or Tags isn’t enough to win an argument. Blocks are cool, but you should make an effort to directly clash with your opponents blocks as well. I also think that you should have an in round vision and that you and your partner should work to ensure that vision flows through the round to the end and that I get a completed picture at the end.
I'm not predisposed to certain types of arguments in a round as liking/disliking them more than others so I will try to listen with an open mind to the arguments that you make. You should also probably not make the decision to drastically alter your style or what you do in round based on my paradigm. I want to see what you do well, how you do it, not what you think I want to see or something you aren’t comfortable with.
Some Specific Argument Notes:
Framework: This is important. You need to give me a frame for the round and win that debate or I will more than likely default to policy maker. However, do not attempt to frame the debate in way that eliminates nearly all ground for one side of the debate. I probably believe that ground should be equitable and predictable for both aff and neg.
Theory: I will listen to it. I will weigh it. Tell me why it matters and have clear demonstrable abuse. Be able to articulate the impact and why Theory matters. I also think that to win a theory debate you probably have to give me more than fragment or single sentence. I need an argument and time to write it down, and if you think it’s important enough to merit a ballot, then I expect you to spend some time on the argument.
Topicality: I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. Too many teams use it as part of a game with little strategic value or execution. A good T debate is a thing of beauty. I can default to competing interps or reasonability and be convinced either way depending on the debate, but I likely default to competing interps unless I have clearly articulated reasons not to. Please do work on the Standards/Voter level. And for the love of debate, if you are winning this argument and the aff isn’t topical please go for T in the 2NR…
Counterplans: I think they are strategic. I'm good with Topical CP's, Advantage Cp's, Smart PIC’s, Multiple CPs, etc. Delay Cp’s aren’t my favorite, but you can win that debate. I probably believe that all arguments are at the core conditional, but I will listen to debate on Status Theory and evaluate what happens in the round. I prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s and I don’t think that CP solves better is a net benefit.
Kritiks: Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team. I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.
DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.
Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And smart analysis of evidence.
What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time. 3. Don’t Clip Cards.
Trenton Hawes Paradigm
Sarah Hazen Paradigm
Jonna Hernandez Paradigm
Becky Hodson Paradigm
Corinna Hodson Paradigm
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.
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.
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 set of negative strategies 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.
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. I am super uninterested in adjudicating a disclosure theory debate. Especially if the Coaching staff of one team has purposefully instructed debaters to not disclose and/or disclosure happened when I was not present. I am interested in telling teams they should disclose because it is clearly good. I may rectify this in speaker points if I do think something expressly bad has happened, however, I have yet to do so. I am also super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round.
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.
Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This doesn't actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.
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.
Margaret Hoy Paradigm
Curt Hoy Paradigm
Cameron Hunt Paradigm
Antionette Ishmael Paradigm
Deb Jaeger Paradigm
Molly James Paradigm
Jason James Paradigm
Dalton James Paradigm
Sheila Johnson Paradigm
Hope Johnson Paradigm
Hannah Johnson Paradigm
Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.
Addendum for College LD:
I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!
A few things about me as a person:
First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. I am employed by a school, because of that I am a mandatory reporter. Please consider this when sharing your narratives, personal communications, etc. with me. If you have questions about mandatory reporting, I will happily answer them!
Second, here's my short bio, I'm in my sixth year of judging and coaching in Kansas (four years at Shawnee Heights High School since graduating in 2014 and in my second year at Topeka High School). I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask
Third, I am fine with speed. However, I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.
How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:
I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.
I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.
When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.
Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.
I get it, Delay CP is the strategic CP on the topic - lots of people run it and it is core neg ground. I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).
I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.
You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.
I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.
I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.
Lisa Jones Paradigm
Scott Jones Paradigm
Cameron Jones Paradigm
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: email@example.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.
~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
Tad Kardis Paradigm
Gregg Katz 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…
Amy Kotwitz Paradigm
Susan Krumm Paradigm
Pamela Kultgen Paradigm
Alice LaVoie Paradigm
Ben Lamb Paradigm
Kyra Larson Paradigm
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)
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 (:
Lesli Lawler Paradigm
Rose Lawler Paradigm
Amy Leuszler Paradigm
Mimi Leuszler Paradigm
Andi Leuszler Paradigm
Rob Leuszler Paradigm
Mike Loewenherz Paradigm
Monica Loewenherz Paradigm
Dennis Logsdon Paradigm
Geoffrey Lundy Paradigm
Devyn Lundy Paradigm
Sandy Macrorie Paradigm
Brandy Malott Paradigm
Eric Mann Paradigm
Diane Markley Paradigm
Tammy Matthews Paradigm
Jessica Mayoral Paradigm
Joe McCarthy Paradigm
Jenny McKeever Paradigm
Christy Mein Paradigm
Matt Michie Paradigm
I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Third year assistant coach at Olathe West. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Joel Morris Paradigm
Cody Morrison Paradigm
Shannon Mullican Paradigm
Adriane Murray Paradigm
Sarah Nickel Paradigm
Clay Nickel Paradigm
Rachel Noeth Paradigm
Chris Noeth Paradigm
Marlo Orton Paradigm
Rocky Orton Paradigm
Blake Overman Paradigm
Piper Peterson Paradigm
Lyn Petro Paradigm
Caitlin Pflumm Paradigm
Jeff Plinsky Paradigm
In Policy Debate, I default policy maker. I will vote on topicality if the Aff is not at least reasonably topical, and the Neg wins the argument. I have a pretty high threshold for voting on kritiks. Very few policy decisions based solely on the views of dead philosophers have been successful, and my policy maker lense is difficult for me to put down here. I'm willing to listen to a kritik, but if I don't find the rhetoric compelling, I have no problem ignoring it.
In Lincoln Douglas, I will focus first on the Value and Criterion debates. I care little for policy implications here unless the topic specifically calls for it. If the topic does call for it, I will be sad. Debate accordingly.
My political views trend liberal with a smattering of libertarian thrown in. But do I try hard to be aware of my own biases, and counter them when evaluating policies and arguments.
I will intervene on the ballot if I think you are being rude, sexist, racist, or deplorable in any other fashion. I've sat with too many kids in tears because of how they were treated in a round. I will not accept it, nor will I enable it. Play nice.
I am not a particularly fast flow; if you go too fast you will lose me. If I don't write it down, you didn't say it. My suggestion is that you start at 3/4 speed and watch my non-verbals. I will not tell you to slow down, but if you think I should be writing and I am not, you have probably lost me.
Mike Rinke Paradigm
Kristi Rinke Paradigm
Pamela Rist Paradigm
Bruce Rist Paradigm
Jacob Roberts Paradigm
Mariana Rosales Paradigm
Katie Rucinski Paradigm
Samantha Ruiz Paradigm
Tammy Rukavina Paradigm
Blake Ryan Paradigm
Jennifer Saia Paradigm
Shawn Saia Paradigm
Richard Salmen Paradigm
Madi Sawyer Paradigm
Basic practice preferences
Flashing should not take an eternity. Do not waste our time. Be honest with how you treat flashing with the other team and I. If you are shady, it's going on the ballot and I will be heavily annoyed. If you want an email chain - email@example.com
I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. I would much rather see a tech over truth debate where each team determines the functionality of arguments within the round rather than spend our time together in an inherency/uniqueness debate. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.
I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.
I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.
Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.
Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.
Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.
Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, the only time to read condo is if you are genuinely incapable of hitting each argument (if the neg speeds 7 off and you are only physically fast enough for 4 or so). Otherwise, I believe you are wasting our time of engaging with the arguments presented in the round. Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.
Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.
Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.
Stephen Schuler Paradigm
Noah Scott Paradigm
Cory Sears Paradigm
Brandy Seidel Paradigm
Heather Seitz Paradigm
Jennifer Shackelford Paradigm
Jeffrey Shackelford Paradigm
Michael Shelton Paradigm
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations, so that's cool.
General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.
Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless you win that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.
Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)
- Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
- Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
- Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
- Cross Examination - Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments. Be polite.
- Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't take it upon myself to police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.
Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)
- CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
- Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
- Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
- Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
- Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."
Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)
- Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
- Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
- Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
- You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is not a bad thing.
- Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
- The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
- I will read along during speeches and may double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.
Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)
- Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
- It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
- A round is a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions, you'll win more times than you'll lose.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Austin Shively Paradigm
Jessica Skoglund Paradigm
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 email@example.com 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!
Mark Skoglund Paradigm
Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.
Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.
Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.
Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.
I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.
Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.
Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:
1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.
2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.
Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.
Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.
Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.
Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.
Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.
Congressional Debate -
Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.
-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.
-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.
-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.
-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesdn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.
-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.
-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.
-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.
-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.
-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.
Keiv Spare Paradigm
Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.
Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School (Kansas). Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches and CEDA national champions.
Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching two cx teams at NSDA nationals in Kansas City in 2010, a cx team at NSDA nationals in Florida in 2018, and 1st place finishes at 321A 2-speaker state in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 1st place at 4A 4-speaker state in 2016, 2nd place finish in 4A 2-speaker state in 2018 and closing out 4A 2-speaker state in 2019. I now help with the Fort Scott High School team. My girlfriend is the assistant coach, and her sister is the head coach.
Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas.
Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)
Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.
Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.
Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.
Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)
Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.
Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.
I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.
Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.
Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").
New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.
Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.
Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.
Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.
Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.
If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.
Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.
I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.
What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.
I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.
One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.
p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.
Janie Sparks Paradigm
Casey Strong Paradigm
Ellie Styers Paradigm
Royal Sullivan Paradigm
Evan Svetlak Paradigm
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.