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.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

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.

Policy

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.

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:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-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!

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.

Sincerely,

The grumpy old man who wants you off of his lawn

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

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

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)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff 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.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

Clearly outline arguments

Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD

Kansas Wesleyan University Director of Debate and Forensics

Current Coach: I have several Private Coaching and Tutoring students in speech and debate :) But I'm a principal at McPherson HS now.

Former Coach: Salina South HS, 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'm just going to say this up top: Flowing is literally the most important skill in debate. If you think you don't need to flow, or that a speech doc is a replacement for flowing you are wrong. If I'm flowing (and I will be) you should be too. A speech doc is not a replacement for a flow and often means that you miss valuable line by line analysis, logical arguments, theory, and can answer cards that weren't read into the round.

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.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

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. Often, 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. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik 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, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

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

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

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 making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

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. This does not 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 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.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

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. Thanks!

Second, I am no longer coaching in high school. I’m typically average 5-10 rounds a year on the high school topic now that I don’t coach. I sometimes coach and judge NFA LD. I remain current on politics, the economy, international relations, etc. I previously coached at Topeka High and Shawnee Heights. 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’m open to different speeds, but I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Additionally, be cognizant of the fact zoom can make you less clear. 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 - hannahjohnson93@gmail.com

Overview:

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.

Affs:

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.

Topicality:

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.

Disads:

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.

Counterplans:

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).

Kritiks:

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.

Framework:

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.

Fringe Args:

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.

Generic Framing:

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.

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

Overall:

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.

Speed:

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.

T:

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.

Theory/Framework:

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.

DA's:

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.

K's:

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.

CP's:

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

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.

Standard things:

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.

Kritiks- 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..

Kritikal affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…

AFFILIATIONS:
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

Yes, you may shake my hand. Shaking hands and introducing oneself is a cultural norm that I value.

PHILOSOPHY:

I do not get "lost in the sauce" in regard to technicalities in debate. However, if I comment "lost in the sauce" on your ballot, then you probably lost. Debate is a game of chess, in which teammates are setting up his/her/their partner for the next move. I was raised in a stock issue style debate mentality. Through the years and moving from and participating in more traditional, suburban debate to more progressive, urban debate, I am more flexible to all styles. I often find that I make my decision during Cross-Examination (CX). Anyone can read files that someone from the University of Michigan wrote and put in DropBox. Trust me. I have read all the files that you will run unless you wrote them yourself. You have to bob and weave with the flow of the debate. I ultimately reward whichever team convinces me that they have the better argument (sound simple, eh?).

AGRESSIVENESS:

I love when teams are aggressive, not rude, but aggressive. I often find that whichever team is able to control the narrative of the debate, is often crowned the victor.

SPEED:

I love a high rate of speed. However, if you are not comfortable or confident in your ability to spread, then don't.

EVIDENCE:

I value reputable and recent evidence. If you use some trash source, I will judge you (that's my job). I also believe that it is highly important that you promote your evidence and chastise your opponents. I am a voracious reader of the news. Impress me with your knowledge of how the current topic applies to today, not whenever someone from Northwestern cut this card a year ago from a source that is several years old.

KRITIKAL DEBATE:

I am a fan of K debate. I am an urban debate coach, so K and performance debate is what we are all about. However, 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.

COUNTER PLAN:

I am a big fan of Counter Plans. However, CPs are a double-edged sword. They offer high risk, yet high reward for debate teams.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Kyra Larson
kyra.larson13@gmail.com

*For Congressional Debate at Nationals 2021*:

I did Congressional Debate all 4 years of high school and was a two-time National Qualifier in Senate. I was a National Semi-finalist in the Senate in 2017. I primarily did Senate, but sometimes House.

A congressional speech should have structure, evidence, and most importantly be a debate. Other speakers and their arguments should be contextualized in your speeches, specifically later in the debate. I dislike repetitive debates and recommend that if you are repeating a point that you justify it and do it well.

Policy Debate:

Last Updated: June 2021
Debated at Olathe Northwest for 4 years (2014-2017) Attending University of Kansas for my PhD
Assistant Coached at Lawrence High School for 2 years (2017 Fall-2019 Spring)

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. I will default to weighing the K against the aff if no other framework arguments are made

T:
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

DAs:
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

CPs:
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.

Ks:
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 comfortable with Kritiks 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. If not listed, I'm not versed in literature of other Ks so it is is YOUR job to do a sufficient explanation. Simply running Ks in high school does not make me a K judge-you still have to do the work. I hate lazy K debates.

Pace:
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.

Theory:
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

Random:
1. Open cross is acceptable, 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 (:

I debated at Olathe Northwest and am a Senior at KU (not debating). Fourth 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 while still retaining clarity. Speeding into an incomprehensible slurry in the text of the card will at best dock your speaker points and at worst severely cost you on the flow; I am not going to just flow your speech doc's tags, I am going to flow what you say. I will say clear if necessary. *This is ESPECIALLY true in a virtual debate. If you are reading at the same speed you would in-person, you will be incomprehensible.

Everything below are just my preferences. I don't really care what arguments you read, as long as they're good.

Topicality: I default to Competing Interpretations. I think teams should be topical. If your aff isn't topical, you should tell me why your aff is better for debate than a topical one, rather than why topicality is bad. You should be as specific as possible about your offense, on both sides. Don't bother with your impact turns.

General Theory: I have no particular leaning one way or the other on most theory args, except that conditionality is good. That doesn't mean don't read condo bad if you want to, you just can't read and barely extend your block shell and expect me to have any interest in voting on it. Your argument should make a broader statement on debate rather than a specific objection to something in-round.

Disadvantages and Impact Turns: The link debate is probably more important than anything else in a DA. 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 wish I saw more teams make more perms than just "do both," and I especially wish more teams actually utilized their perms effectively past the block.

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. Links of omission are not links. Evidence here matters immensely. I feel like teams take each other's K cards at face-value way too often. A lot of these cards on both sides of any K are total gibberish, you should be pointing that out to me.

Framework: I generally don't like extremely generic/limiting framework interps. I default to believing the Aff's role is to endorse an inherent resolution-based advocacy that solves for significant harms, and the Negative's role is to dispute the Aff on the basis of any of those terms, or by expressing the significant harms of the Aff. I feel like many of my decisions end up coming down to the fact that teams let each other get away with way too much here. Framework is not an opportunity for you to read your cool interp block your squad wrote 7 years ago 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.

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. 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.

Argument breakdown

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, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! 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.

BOTTOM LINE

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.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

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.

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 that 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 one of the teams wins 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 - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• 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 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.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• 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 you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "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.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• 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 a good 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 will likely 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 just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

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.

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!

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

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 doesn'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.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas 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

2011 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Curt Lockwood & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2011 321A 2-Speaker 3rd Place (Bruce Williams & Caleb McIntosh - Caney Valley High School)
2012 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Jeremy Nave & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2013 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Alexis Brey & Alex Vore - Caney Valley High School)
2016 4A 4-Speaker 1st Place (Seth Cross, Zach Humble, Joe Adams, Isabella Provence - Fort Scott High School)
2018 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2019 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2020 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place and 2nd Place (closeout) (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia, Madi Toth, Dalton Womeldorf - Fort Scott High School)
2021 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Neil Gugnani, Shekhar Gugnani - Fort Scott High School)

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, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

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.

Overall:

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.

Overview:

I enjoy a good debate. I dislike unnecessary rudeness (sometimes rudeness is called for) and I dislike lazy argumentation. Run whatever makes you feel comfortable and I’ll evaluate it in the context of the round to the best of my ability and not the context of my own personal preferences. Of course, removing all implicit bias is impossible but I encourage all forms of effective argumentation. As long as you are persuasive and educational, you’ve got a fair shot. That being said, I do enjoy a nice critical debate, just make sure you’re not lazy with it and clearly articulate the arguments. Otherwise, I love to see folks having a good time in a round. Don’t be so uptight! We gotta spend at least an hour with each other in a little room. If we’re not all relaxed it’s gonna be painful.

Arguments:

T- I never ran this so I don’t have much experience on the argument just like anything else flesh it out and articulate all areas like the definition, violation, voters etc. Overall, not something I default to reasonability unless you convince me otherwise.

DAs- Dope arguments, depending on how they’re framed can be super devastating or just ok.

CPs- Fine with me all the way.

K’s- Love ‘em but don’t be lazy just cuz you think you can win me over with one.

Condo- Up to the round, tell me what’s up and I’ll evaluate accordingly. However, if your strategy involves running a K and a traditional FW arg, then you're digging a deep hole for yourself.

Framework- I have a high threshold for a traditional FW argument. You really gotta go all in and be way better than your opponent to convince me that they should have stuck to traditional policy structure.

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Sumner Academy and have debated a few years at KCKCC. I believe that debate is a dope activity through which people can shape their own realities.

Last Updated: Summer 2022

Assistant Speech Coach for 4 years at Lawrence High

Debated at Olathe Northwest for 2 years and Speech all 4 years.

Undergraduate at University of Kansas

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Experience: I competed in this event from 2014-2018. Have been coaching this event for 4 years.

What I look for:

- Early speeches should both provide general pros/cons for the bill while referencing the bill and what each section is changing.

- Direct clash is very very important to making Congressional debate, debate. However, when referencing speeches, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. If you are adding to an argument, make it clear why your addition was necessary.

- Presiding over a chamber can be just as important as giving speeches

- Knowing the rules of the chamber and tournament, even when not the PO, is important.

- Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated. It will show up on your ballot and when necessary, be reported.

POLICY

Overall: 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 myself (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.

Speed: 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.

T: 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.

Theory/Framework: 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.

DA's: 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.

K's: 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.

CP's: 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.

Don't be Racist, sexist, homophobic, 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.

I've been coaching speech and debate at SME for 20 years (15 as head coach and 5 as an assistant). I debated open at SME, where I also went to high school.

I tend to evaluate debates from a policy-making paradigm, but I'm open to other frameworks. I'm also open to any arguments as long as adequate analysis is given and the argument's relevance to the debate and issues being discussed is made clear. I'm not extremely familiar with K lit so I'd be cautious to read a K in front of me, but I'm open.

I like to see clash and connecting your arguments to the claims made by your opponents. I want your evidence to be strong in terms of having clear warrants that match your claims, but you need to do the work in terms of pointing out key warrants, as well as scrutinizing your opponent's evidence.

When it comes to analysis, I prefer genuine, conversational delivery and explanations as opposed to spewing pre-written blocks.

I prefer speed at a moderate to quick pace as long as you're clear.

I want clear link stories and strong impact calc! I prefer the debate to funnel down to essential issues.

Please sign-post clearly when transitioning between cards and arguments.

Ethos is important so please be respectful and kind to each other, and present yourselves in a convincing, persuasive manner!