KSHSAA 2020 6A 2 Speaker Tournament
2020 — Hutchinson HS, Hutchinson, KS/US
22JX Atchley Paradigm
I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)
I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.
I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.
Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.
Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.
11JZ Baldwin Paradigm
02JX Barrett Paradigm
I debated 4 years in high school up to the Varsity Level, and have a preference for slower, more analytical styles of debate. While I can follow spreading, I much prefer to be able to vote based on the arguments themselves rather than one team being able to out-speed the other.
The main thing I don't like to see as a judge are rounds that divulge completely from what I consider more traditional debate. Things I'm okay with: stock issues, DAs, CPs, T, Ks. If you want to make an analytical argument without evidence go for it, provided you're being logical and not just making up BS.
Things I'm not a fan of: The aff not actually having a plan, Topicality on a period, Performance Affs, CXs that become 2 people yelling at each other. In general it's fair to say that if what you're doing in a debate round would make someone of medium experience say "What on earth are you doing", then I probably won't like it. Other than that, so long as you understand the arguments you're trying to make I'm game.
Last thoughts: Be polite but not subservient, make sure you're actually debating the other team instead of dancing in circles around them, put arguments in your own words without dumbing them down (again, I want to know that you understand the points you're making). I'm always open to answer questions before the round if I missed something, and providing comments after if they're wanted.
04JX Bernard Paradigm
17JY Billig Paradigm
I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.
I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.
On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.
If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.
10JY Biswell Paradigm
debated @ esu for 4 1/2
assistant coach @ Newton for 3
assistant coach @ smw current for 3
chrisbiswell (at) gmail dot com
fyi - A recent injury has made it so I can not grasp a pen for any serious length if time. Not that anyone could read my handwriting anyway, but you'll likely notice ballots being less filled out with a recommendation to email me for more in depth comments. If the tournament is okay with a frd in round, the ballot may just be outright blank, but feel free to still email for a follow up. *this does not impact actual flowing, only written ballots*
You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.
Affs - it's all fine, role of judge/ballot is appreciated if you do not fiat USFG action. if it's clear the neg has no idea what is going on then I would appreciate you not just reading your blocks and instead helping them a long a bit.
Case args - big fan of modular impact turns and terminal pre/post fiat presumption arguments. A slick add-on in the 2ac to the CP/K is usually as effective as a impact turn pivot in the block.
Impact framing - not to be confused with framework - tbh this usually at best is a call for the neg to extend warrants, which they are gonna do anyway. I generally think this page is a waste of time and relying on it exclusively is usually not going to win me over.
T/framework - competing interps, case lists help with resolving offense. you can be center of the topic and still lose on t if you mishandle the tech.
DA - they can be a little shaky if the on case or cp trades off with the aff well.
CP - cheating ones usually have good reasons why they are bad, making the X cp bad arg on the aff is usually enough. I'm a sucker for good, clever pics tho. I'll buy sufficenecy framing most of the time, especially on an aff biased topic where there is poor neg ground.
K - alts are overrated but if you do have one I appreciate it being explained as a process rather than an event. I tend to be sympathetic to proximate > root cause arguments absent something to mitigate the proximate cause.
For speaks I try and stick to the tournament standard at the time but if thats not avalible then i go with the below.
30 - superior tech, argument deployment, rhetoric. no way to improve your performance in this debate. I feel like you could easily be in semi finals, if not win the entire thing.
29 - missing one of the above. small improvements could be made. A solid octs and above projection.
28 - average. you tried, and it was apparent. lots of room for improvement. I could see you making it to partials/doubles but you'll have a tough time past that.
27 - questionable effort, multiple mistakes. I'd see you going maybe 4-4 at best.
26 and below - you said/did something very problematic.
20JX Booth Paradigm
I would like to be in the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org You can also reach me there if you want to ask me questions before a round and you have a disability that makes it difficult to communicate something to me in the room. Also, feel free to email with constructive questions about the round after it is over.
Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career (see biographical info below). What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc.
I can't remember who told me this, but it was once remarked to me that a judge's background, i.e. who coached them, where they debated, where they've coached, etc. provides much better insight into how they think about debates than the actual preferences they outline in their paradigm. In that spirit, I've provided some biographical information which I think will prove useful. Do with it what you will. If you're short on time, I recommend just checking out the "implications" portions.
1. I debated for Mill Valley High School from 2013-2016 (Latin America, oceans, surveillance). I hear the team is doing quite well now, which makes me very happy as an alumnus, but while I was there our coach was more of a forensics sponsor, and not knowledgable in what may be termed as "circuit/TOC/DCI" debate. Thus, 95% of the rounds I debated in high school were slow and in front of parent judges. I never attended a DCI or TOC bid tournament, and in fact did not even know of these tournaments' existence until later in my senior year. Additionally, until I went to camp before my senior year, I was mostly self-taught (poorly) from cross-x.com and an old debate textbook from the '90s I managed to unearth somewhere on the internet (to give you an idea, counterwarrants and justifications were chapters).
A) My beginnings in lay debate have carried over in some aspects. I fervently believe that debate is a communicative activity, and therefore insist that I can hear and understand every word that is being said. I will say clear at most twice during a speech, then give up flowing. Often debaters will have different levels of clarity during different parts of their speech, sometimes making it difficult to call out unclear speech if the moment passes. To avoid this, please just be clear in the first place. As I am still currently debating and have judged a good number of high school and college (novice) debates, I'd like to think I have a pretty well-attuned ear, meaning that if I can't understand you it is probably because you are being genuinely unclear, not because you are going too fast. Because of my belief that debate is fundamentally communicative, I do not accept "insert this rehighlighting" as legitimate and I am not a big fan of inserting charts into speeches. If you must insert a chart/graph, fine, but most of these visual aids are usually accompanied by an article explaining the chart, so this more often seems to be a shortcut to actually communicating something to me in the round.
B) My foundations in debate were originally in traditional policy-style arguments, especially disads and extensive case debates, as it was difficult to make even counterplans palatable for parents.
C) I have a soft spot for debaters from smaller or underfunded programs. I despise arrogance from debaters with more experience and resources against those without. Confidence is fine, but there can be a fine line between it and meanness. Please recognize that everyone has different levels of access to the activity and refrain from disparaging other debaters implicitly or explicitly because of their background, or I will lower your speaks dramatically. Luckily, I have only seen a couple of serious examples of this, but I find it important to mention nonetheless.
2. In the summer of 2015, I attended the 2-week Jayhawk debate institute. My lab leaders were Ian Beier and Deven Cooper. I contributed to a Foucault kritik and the fusion centers aff during my time there. This experience was short, but was the first exposure I had to "TOC/DCI" debate, i.e. extensive spreading, kritiks, theory, etc., so I believe that it is still very influential for how I think about debate today.
A) I think this was technically the K lab for my group. It was my first real experience with critical literature, and Foucault/Agamben still holds a special place in my heart. Deven also introduced me to some of the central tenants of afro-pessimism, and encouraged us to read directly from Red, White, and Black (though my understanding of these theories has improved significantly since then). Because this was also when I started really producing my own evidence, through critical literature, I also find that I have a preference for longer cards with more highlighting and fleshed out warrants, even in straight-up policy debates. I dislike having to find warrants in un-underlined or un-highlighted portions of cards when I'm reading evidence after the debate, and may not consider them at all if I don't think they're consistent with the rest of the highlighting.
B) Something important instilled in me in this lab was maintaining a good balance between hard work/dedication and having fun. Being serious in debates is fine, but I also appreciate when debaters try to make an effort to keep the activity enjoyable. If you don't enjoy being in debates I'm not sure why you would participate in the activity.
3. I have had some brief stints coaching and judging Lincoln Douglas and public forum debate.
4. Currently, I am in my fourth year of policy debate at NYU (emissions, healthcare, executive authority, space cooperation). I debated with Ella Kuzmenko my first year and read almost exclusively traditional policy arguments at mostly regional tournaments. In the last three years I have debated with Alex Sherman, reading a mix of "high theory," impact turns, and traditional policy arguments. In these three years I have debated at more national tournaments, including CEDA and the NDT. My main coaches during my time at NYU have been Will Baker (all 4 years), John Dellamore (more my first 2 years), and Nick Tilmes (this last year only). During my time in college, I have been exclusively a 2A/1N.
A) Being coached by Will has transitively made me feel like an "old soul" in some of the ways I evaluate arguments. I don't usually follow along in speech docs. I don't like to read a lot of evidence, but when debaters don't do enough comparison or if a card is heavily contested throughout a round, then I will read what I have to. I usually find myself having to read more evidence than I would like in the post-round because debaters don't do enough in the 2NR/2AR to frame what's most important. I appreciate spin a lot, especially if it starts earlier in the debate, and as long as it isn't straight up contradicting what your cards are saying (i.e. your spin should be in the direction of your evidence). I think there are many disadvantages and advantages that are poorly constructed and could be beaten with a few smart analytic arguments. I believe in 0 risk for a DA. I also don't follow the high school "meta" very closely and don't care about your rep.
B) Being a 2A I think makes more inherently sympathetic to affs on theory questions and the like. I think condo has gone way too far in recent years, especially with multi-plank counterplans that have dozens or hundreds of possible combinations that can all be kicked. If the aff wins new affs are good, it doesn't make sense to me why new affs would then justify unbridled conditionality. That being said, I do my best to evaluate theory arguments as well as I would any other argument in debate. I also like to reward aff creativity, and some of my favorite rounds are when I see an aff idea that I have not heard or thought of yet.
C) Since I started out reading policy args in a very k-heavy region, then transitioned to reading more k args against policy teams nationally, most of my college debate career has been clash debates. These are also the debates that I always excelled the most in, on either side of the spectrum. Trying to convince me that one side or the other is completely irredeemable is possible, but not something I am necessarily amenable to. I find arguments that X model of debate produces research/skills, but those are the wrong kinds of skills, and ours are better because of Y, Z, to be more convincing.
5. I am currently an assistant coach for Blue Valley West high school in Kansas and Mamaroneck high school in New York. As these circuits are pretty different, albeit equally intense, they've given me some interesting perspectives on debate. My coaching and judging in Kansas involves a lot more preparation against traditional policy arguments, while my work in New York involves more preparation against critical arguments.
A) Overall, about 2/3rds of the rounds I judge are clash of civs and 1/3rd are policy v. policy, with some k v. k rounds sprinkled in there.
B) I have *some* topic knowledge for arms sales, but the highest level policy v. policy debates may have terminology or regions that I am unfamiliar with, so please don't assume my prior knowledge and make your arguments as understandable as possible (which I would hope you would be doing in front of any judge).
6. I am a history and computer science major and will soon be a software engineer in KCMO. In history, I have a particular interest in 20th century French and German intellectual history, from which much of critical theory in debate derives.
A) The lack of understanding that debaters and even the academics they cite have for how things like AI and big data actually work is pretty astounding to me. Obviously I evaluate the debate in front of me and will consider any warrants forwarded, but know my eyes may be rolling into the back of my head when I hear that catastrophic AI is going to cause extinction in the next 5 years. I honestly think that these are some of the most ridiculous impact arguments in debate.
B) My experience in intellectual history gives me a decent grounding in a lot of French theory. These theories provide the foundation for so much of critical literature that when I think through these arguments in debate I am usually also thinking about them in the context of their foundational authors. The easiest example I can think of is that when I judge Edelman vs. Puar, in my mind I conceptualize this as Lacan vs. Deleuze as a starting point
C) Despite this historical foundation in theory, I am not always necessarily familiar with the way that authors may get deployed in debate. I am also sensitive to how debate's limited time format can cause authors to be misconstrued and have their original intentions obscured. Nietzsche is a prime example of this. If you're interested in what literature I am specifically familiar with, see the kritiks section.
It seems this is the main reason most people read paradigms these days. I have voted both ways in these debates, and have been on both sides (2A reading a k aff & 1N going for fw in the block) of the framework debate in my career. Generally, I think the impact vs the impact turn is what my decision comes down to most of the time, since there aren't many counter-interpretations that are predictable. If your affirmative doesn't come to the conclusion that the resolution is true, you're much better off just going for impact turns to fairness and education in front of me. I think negative teams here most often miss why things like fairness and education are important. Impact these claims out into some tangible benefit that I can compare against the impact turn. Writing a neg ballot only on procedural fairness is hard for me. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. These debates leave me wondering how to compare fairness to something tangible like psychological violence or political passivity in a traditional impact calc sense. I find fairness much more convincing to me as an impact filter, i.e. a reason to be skeptical of the case page, ensuring better clash, etc. Fairness as a filter to some neg arguments and a more external impact like skills or topic-specific education is a much more convincing ballot for me. When I do vote on fairness alone, it is usually because the negative team has also forwarded substantial defensive arguments like a convincing TVA, read it on the neg, or c/i links to aff offense that mitigates the risk of the impact turn to nearly 0.
Other Argument Preferences:
Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. For affs, pick either the impact turn strat or the perm strat and stick with it. I like impact turns better, but sometimes perms are more strategic. I'm not sure how useful this is, but the way I think about kritiks may also be a bit different than what you're used to. Rather than thinking about it as a non-unique disad with a counterplan, I think about the impacts as negative effects of the status quo, the alternative as a way of resolving the status quo, and the links as reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening, rather than something that directly causes the impacts. This framing helps me a lot when I'm thinking through permutations. This is of course when I'm evaluating something like fiat. Winning that the debate should only be about representations and that the affirmative's reps are bad for scholarship is also a convincing ballot for me.
Literature I am intimately familiar with (have run these arguments frequently and/or have done other research outside of debate into them): Cap, Psychoanalysis (more Lacan than Freud), Baudrillard, Foucault, DnG, Bataille, plant ontology (lol), Bifo, Edelman, Puar.
Literature I am somewhat familiar with (have run these arguments infrequently or done some coaching on them): Derrida, Wilderson, Warren, Set Col.
Anything else assume that I have little or no familiarity with.
Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.
Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in these debates. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card rather than spitting out 10 bad ones.
Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. I don't presume anything for theory questions. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR.
Topicality: I default to competing interps most of the time, but you can convince me that I should vote on reasonability. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best.
Other Random Debate Opinions:
-I love impact turns. Everything from prolif good and dedev to spark and wipeout.
-I think that intrinsicness vs. agenda politics disads is an underutilized argument. By that I mean if the affirmative can prove that both the agenda item and plan can happen at the same time then I will assign the da 0 risk. I think most political capital is finite ev is pretty bad and does not actually establish tradeoffs, but hey maybe you'll surprise me.
-I'm also a big fan of in-depth theory debates. If I'm judging LD for some reason please note that I don't mean RVIs, etc. - these are still an uphill battle for me. But I enjoy a good condo or PICs debate. By "good," I mean you have to actually be responding to your opponents arguments, doing line-by-line, etc., instead of just reading blocks at top speed at each other, which unfortunately is what a lot of these debates have devolved to.
-I like numbering 2AC responses to off-case and 1NC responses to case arguments. If you can keep consistent numbering and substructure I will be a fan and it will help my flow.
This is a pretty good scale that I like to use: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html
I have a lot of personal political and philosophical beliefs, but I try my best to leave them at the door. Being funny or just doing things to make the debate more enjoyable will boost your speaker points. I think debate is a game, and I think it's a pretty fun one. So while winning or losing, always try to have fun. You don't need to always take things so seriously. I don't understand why someone would do this activity if they didn't enjoy it.
11JX Brown Paradigm
updated: October 24, 2019
Experience: 2 years of parliamentary debate at Northwest Community College, and did 3 years of NPDA and NPTE debate at Washburn University. During this time, I was semi-competitive at both levels. Many of my thoughts and upbringing of debate comes from a multitude of people from the community college circuit and the national circuit. I would say my views on debate though have been largely shaped by Jeannie Hunt, Steven Doubledee, and Kevin O’Leary.
General: Debate to me is a multitude of things meaning that it is an open space for a diversity of arguments. It still to me though is largely a game that is shaped by the real world and lived experience. I am fine with you doing whatever you please, but I am not saying that I will understand it, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments as best as I can. Make the debate yours, have fun, and compete, that’s what I believe.
--Defense (I love terminal defense, to me it is very underutilized)
--Ask for copies of texts or repeat them (ROTB, interps, or anything I will need word for word please read slowly and repeat)
--Partner Communication is fine
In general, I do not have a preference in the style of the way you debate, do you, and I will evaluate the best I can.
Theory: This is one subset of arguments that I wished I delved more into when I debated. I will not say I am the best at understanding theory, but I do not mind a good procedural or a strategic use of theory. Deploy it as necessary or as an escape valve, it doesn’t matter to me. I think having impacted out voters is nice. Although, the standards debate to me is the crux of the shell, gotta win a substantive standard to get the impact/voter. I probably would mostly default to competing interps, as well, to me it just makes the most sense.
Case: I love case debate. Good terminal case defense and awesome turns, to me, is an underutilized strategy. Aff’s be able to defend the case, sometimes as MG’s we get too bogged down prepping for the off case positions, just be sure to be able to defend your case. I think LOC’s should get to case to at least mitigate each advantage, but I understand time constraints and time management.
Performance: To me all debate is a performance, right? Like the judge is basically the audience and evaluates two opposing speakers, seems like a performance, but I digress.
- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).
- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.
- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.
- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance
The K- I think a good criticism has framework, thesis, links, impacts, alt, and alternative solvency. The thesis allows the judge to be able to better understand the K itself, by giving a short synopsis of the K, the framework tells me how to evaluate it, is fiat illusory, should evaluate epistemology over ontology, etc. The links should be specific to the topic and grounded to the literature or if the aff is a critical aff then there should be good justifications for why you are rejecting the topic ( I will vote on framework). If the aff is a critical aff, if you are on the neg and don’t have good links to the aff and you prepped your k, and you are also going to read Framework, just make a decision and either go for framework or the K (I just think many instances framework contradicts criticsms so reading framework and a K seems to be contradictory to me unless they don’t contradict). The K should probably outweigh and turn the aff. I do not know all critical literature but the literature bases I do know are:
- Post Modernism
- Post Structuralism
- Critical Race Theory
Don’t let this constrain you though, I love to learn new things and don’t mind listening. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments
CP Theory: Read whatever theory related to Counterplans you want, if you win it you win it. If you lose it, you lose it.
- Always and only a test of competition
- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.
- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.
- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.
Speak Points: I will probably range from 26-30. 30 would be excellent, 29 is almost excellent, and so forth.
09JY Burris Paradigm
***I would like to be in on the e-mail chain -- email@example.com
I debated for four years at Field Kindley High School (Coffeyville, KS). I chose not to debate in college, and was hired as an Assistant Coach at Lawrence Free State High School (Lawrence, KS) for the 2019-20 school year.
You are welcome to present your arguments in whatever framework/paradigm you prefer, and I'll evaluate the round accordingly. Otherwise, I default to being a policymaker. Do what you feel you're best at, be confident, and have fun.
Speed: Slow down a little for anything procedural, and plan/counterplan text in particular. Otherwise, I'm fine with speed. If I am not flowing, that is a bad sign.
Disadvantages: Generics are fine but you're going to have to do the work on impact calculus later in the game (magnitude/timeframe/probability).
Counterplans: Fine. I don't lean either way on theory, with the exception that on Aff., I tend to default to permutations should include the entire Aff. plan and all or part of the counterplan. I'm willing to listen to reasons otherwise.
Theory: I try to evaluate on a technical level and reward/penalize soundness and unforced errors accordingly. If the debate is just reading frontlines and blocks I have a very hard time tuning in.
Kritiks: There needs to be a clear link to the case and the alternative must be well-explained. If the debate becomes kritik vs. kritik then please make your points of competition clear.
CX: I flow questions and answers. 18.75% of any complete debate round will be spent in CX. I think that's non-trivial. Each speaker and team stands to gain/lose by how well or poorly a CX goes. Be civil to the other team and your teammate.
Other: If you are performing outside of the realm of the above, please identify the role of the ballot. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Tech over truth, though there is definitely a floor/ceiling to that.
Personal other: The two people that have influenced my debate thinking the most are Darrel Harbaugh (retired FKHS coach and NSDA Hall-of-Famer) and Ross Smith (the late coach of Wake Forest University's debate team, where I chose to attend camp), if that helps illuminate where I'm from. I have competed and judged in elim rounds at NSDA Nationals.
Addendum for KCS tournament (1/10 - 1/11/2020): Do whatever you're most comfortable doing.
If it's not covered above, ask.
Richard Caldwell Paradigm
Shelby Caldwell Paradigm
08JZ Chaffin Paradigm
06JZ Coleman Paradigm
Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14
I do want on the e-mail chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.
Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.
Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.
Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me
1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.
2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.
3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.
4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.
5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.
Ways to impress me
1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.
2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.
3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.
I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.
I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.
Topicality - K Affs
I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.
I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.
I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.
Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.
I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.
Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.
07JY Cook Paradigm
I debated in high school at Dodge City High from 2000-2004. I prefer moderate to slow rounds with lots of analysis and argument development. I grew up on stock issues debate but probably leav toward policy making at this point.
26JX Corcoran Paradigm
I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS for 3 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center for 3 years. I also debated in high school. Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports that argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Keep it civil as well.
If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable.
Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments.
07JZ Darley Paradigm
23JX Davis Paradigm
My main concern when judging a round is whether or not I can understand what is being said. If a speaker stumbles over a lot of words when reading a case, it shows lack of preparation for the round. If you use vocabulary that is not in everyday language, you should define what you referencing, especially if you are using acronyms. I appreciate when the arguments have a nice flow to them. Evidence is extremely important to me. I like to see good sportsmanship, so being polite to the other team is key.
09JX De La Cruz Paradigm
Email chain: email@example.com
Background: I did policy debate & speaking events in forensics at Field Kindley High School in SEK for 3 years. I graduated in 2003. Never even considered college debate. I am currently an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School.
Approach: Handle me like a classic policymaker. I prefer for a round to come down to impact calc, that makes my life easy, but I understand theory and will weigh it as needed. (That said, direct clash on case is golden and no judge worth their salt can get enough of it.) Do expect me to listen to and/or read your cards for powertagging during prep time but not hold it against you unless your opponent mentions it. Don't expect me to flow your long tags. I will rename them according to what I hear or read. I rank arguments, note contradictions, and posit ideal arguments in my head (and vertically on my flow) throughout the round, but I won't weigh any of that unless you say it. At most, I'll tell you what you missed on the ballot. I'm out to hear the best argument possible delivered as well as possible at all times and I will always reward a team for doing so. Please, surprise me.
Speed: I've judged 1 tournament per year for the last 5+ years, which is both good and bad for you. The good news is: I've been outside the culture long enough for my debate career for my biases to be diminished. The bad news is: I'm behind the times. By the end of the 2019 season, I should be able to keep up with varsity speed and long(ish) tags since I used to be able to do so. Until then, I need you to be VERY clear for me to follow speed. If you can't handle that, I can't handle your speed. Also, please make your tags stand out. If the tag blends in smoothly with the card, your tag is awful, I'm distracted, and no speed will work in your favor.
CX: I rarely flow CX. If I hear a question and/or response that sound like they should be weighed, or might come back, I'll add it to my flow. I will not acknowledge it again until the end of the round unless someone in the round mentions it.
Topicality: I've never voted on T before, that doesn't mean you shouldn't run it. It's useful as part of an overall negative strategy but there have been several occasions when T wasn't run on a case that was clearly non-T. Don't make that mistake. Run T at your leisure. I will never punish you for running an argument.
Disadvantages: I will go where you lead me when it comes to advantages vs disadvantages. I'm fine with running generic disads but, if you plan to keep it, I will expect good links. I'm fine with terminal impacts if you give me a decent impact story. I default to terminal impact calculus unless you run theory saying I should do otherwise. Do me a solid and don't conflate disads and turns.
Theory: I'm game for all theory so long as it's run correctly. I'll only vote on theory if you run it in earnest and go beyond generic theory blocks.
Counterplans: I'll hear anything but, if it's morally or ethically reprehensible, you better run it correctly and pursue it on the flow. I can and will vote for that stuff but I won't go out of my way to connect the dots for you. If you just plan to drop it later, I'll roll my eyes and carry on. (Debate *is* a game.) PICs are fine. It's the affirmative's job to beat them. Remember that CPs are theory and you'll need to put in work to win it if you're carrying it into rebuttals.
Kritiks: See theory section above. If it comes down to K vs K in rebuttals, you will need to elucidate the clash.
Framework: I flow this off-case. (Separately, in the case of K-affs.) Most debaters don't handle framework like the theory it is. Respect your framework and I will too.
Prep Time: I'm not a clock watcher, but if I notice that you're abusing "flash time" to create extra prep time I will treat you like the n00b you are and find a way to hold you accountable. I really only hold this position out of respect for the tournament hosts who need the round to end at least close to on time. If I've noticed your abuse of time, despite my focus being on your cards and my flow, you're doing too much.
Philosophy: Debate is an activity of logic and order. If you signpost like a champ, but your arguments are shallow, you're likely to lose. If your arguments have depth, but you leave the round muddled at the end, you're likely to lose. Mastering debate requires you master both skillsets. From this perspective, this is an activity where you are competing against yourself in a dynamic thought experiment where others are controlling the variables and the ballot is your measure of success. Nevermind your opponents, they're only there to make things exciting. I'm just a variable you can't ignore. Try not to get emotional, draw emotions out of me, or your opponent; even if I sympathize, all will backfire. If you're enjoying the game, I'm enjoying judging. Someone has to lose, so it's better to learn from them than fear them.
02JZ Delgado Paradigm
# of years debated in HS 4
# of years debated in College 4 What College/University University of Central Missouri
Currently a (check all that apply) X Head HS Coach
____College Coach X College Debater
____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 12
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_____Policy Maker X Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa
_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution
What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
The Negative has presumption, but they should argue both on and off case.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
This is a communication event.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
I will listen to DA, CP, and K. However, I am not interested in perfomance debate--please adapt.
How I feel about case debates?
the Affirmative MUST win case.
21JX Deutch Paradigm
While I did not debate in high school, I do have a lot of experience in speech and theater. I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 6 years.
The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.
As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.
In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.
05JX Dietz Paradigm
I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.
Zach Dinges Paradigm
Sean Duff Paradigm
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.
Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff obviously great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.
Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.
CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.
Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.
T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.
Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.
K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.
02JZ E. Mojica Paradigm
Graduate from US Naval Academy -- 1993
Tournaments judged on the topic - 0
Years in debate - 0
04JY Eitutis Paradigm
06JY Ellis Paradigm
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Debated at Manhattan High School
Email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
First thing is first, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.
Tl;dr - I judge quite a bit, about 100 rounds last year, and am generally pretty familiar with the topic from coaching and working at camps. As a competitor I gravitated toward plan oriented affs and CP/DA strategies on the neg and have coached teams who debate similarly, but I am open to you debating however you would like to. I have literature deficiencies in some areas that make me less knowledgeable of certain strategies. I am also a teacher who believes in debate as an educational activity, so I am generally open to listening to you debate in whatever fashion you're the most comfortable.
If you would like to know more specifics, they are below.
Topicality: I feel like topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. I have seen a lot of 2ARs recently where the aff doesn't extend a terminal impact to their counter interp. I pretty much always vote neg in these situations. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability alone is not an argument that makes sense to me, absent an offensive argument. Good is good enough is nonsense - if you are close to beating a DA, I'm still going to vote neg. If you want to utilize a reasonability argument more persuasively, I would suggest that you frame it almost like sufficiency on the counterplan and have an offensive reason that inclusion of the aff is good. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull. I am growing weary of affs that obviously defend a certain agent with their solvency advocate and advantages but will not defend that agent when debating an agent counterplan. Stop this and defend your arguments please.
Framework: I find that framework debates to me are usually an issue of fairness. I find myself generally not super persuaded by the value of topic education vs the value of whatever educational outlet the affirmative has chosen to discuss is. The aff usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. Fairness is a bit more contestable from the negative perspective, in my opinion. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a very good judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. Regardless, I also think that the aff has a better chance by focusing most of their time on impact turning framework and then using the directionality of the aff toward the topic in order to win some defense against the negs framework claims.
Theory: Most theory debates are people reading blocks back and forth and are totally useless. I usually default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule, but it has been a long time since I saw a team ready to debate condo very well.
Kritiks: I am not as familiar with the literature base for this style of argumentation. That doesn't mean I don't vote on the K, it simply means that you need a little more explanation for your argument than you otherwise might. I think that good K teams are able to contextualize their argument with the world of the affirmative. Recently I've judged a bunch of K debates where the links all seem to be descriptions of the status quo, but the affirmative is not very good at winning that the aff is in the direction of the alt. If the neg is going to try and go for just framework and a link/ethics argument, I think it is important that they focus a substantial amount of time on the framework debate, and try and have an interpretation of framework that is not completely arbitrary and should try and win that there is a unique link to the aff. If you are able to win framework and a unique link then you're probably good without an alt. If you are going to go for an alternative, it is probably important that you explain to me how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative, otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. Be descriptive of how the alt functions. I have also found myself recently voting for the aff in the vast majority of debates where the 2NR does not have a thorough contestation of the affirmative. You don't explicitly have to go to the case pages, but you should definitely be calling into question the truth of the 1ACs internal link chains or the efficacy of it to solve the problems that it seeks to solve.
Disads/Counterplans/Case: These are the types of debate I am most familiar with. I think the case debate is under utilized, and that the education topic may have been the worst thing in recent memory at teaching people to debate the case. I wish that more teams would focus on the internal links to the aff advantages instead of just reading impact defense and hoping that a DA outweighs. I think delay counterplans are cheating. Conditions and consult counterplans I can easily be convinced are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps.
Things I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means. Evidence comparison. Debaters who don't read off their computer for the whole debate. Debaters who are funny/having fun. Warranted arguments/smart analytics. Well thought out strategies.
Things I dislike: Bluetooth speakers, must define all terms, running arguments you don't really understand, death good, topicality = genocide, general rudeness, stealing prep time, and clipping cards. If you enjoy doing these things, you probably don't want me to judge you.
Disclaimer: I love the activity of debate, and think that it is a place where all types of debate styles/debaters should be welcome. If you are excessively rude to the other team (laughing during speeches, being disrespectful in cross-x, etc) I will let you know. If the behavior continues, there is a strong chance that I will vote against you on principle.
17JX Fritton Paradigm
Debated through high school and for one year at the University of Kansas.
I would say that I'm a hybrid stock issues/policy maker but with a strong policy-maker lean. However, I'm also there to arbitrate your arguments, so if you want me to apply another paradigm, as long as you can cogently argue it and convince me why I should change, I'm flexible and willing to change for the round. I would seriously LOVE to judge more hypo-testing.
I will accept the K, provided you capably understand it and can demonstrate that understanding to me and translate your understanding to a compelling rationale for voting for it. I tend to flow Kritikal arguments similarly to disads.
I will accept generic disads, but try to have them link. Specific disads are always better and with what seems like functionally all affs available via wiki, there's no reason not to do the research to find a specific link. In evaluating disads, my natural inclination (which you can overcome) is to prefer realistic impacts even if they are small, to enormous but highly attenuated impacts such as multiple extinction events/nuke wars/etc. I don't like to count who has the highest number of nuclear exchanges at the end of the round, but if I have to, I will.
I am a dinosaur and, as such, value topicality. I will almost certainly not make topicality a "reverse voter" and give the aff a win if the only thing they've accomplished is to beat neg's T arguments. However, I will vote neg on T only, assuming neg wins it. In line with my feelings on T, before you run a PIC, ask if the aff plan is topical.
Speed is fine and I can usually follow and flow very fast debaters. If I am holding a pen, even if I'm not writing at any given moment, I am following you. If I have put down my pen, it means you've lost me and should probably back up or make some other effort to get me back. I greatly prefer closed cross; my view is that you should be able to spend three minutes defending the speech you just gave. While speed is fine, in my position as a dinosaur, I still value rhetoric and persuasion. If you're a compelling speaker, let that shine. Group the other side's arguments and go slower and compel me to vote for you.
Again indulging my prerogative: I not only accept, I encourage new in the two. It's called a "constructive" speech for a reason. Go ahead and construct. Similarly, I will accept add-on advantages from the aff and internally inconsistent arguments from the neg as long as they have kicked out of whatever makes them inconsistent and still allows the affirmative a chance to respond by the end of the round. As befitting a Gen X'er, I value courtesy and think you can absolutely hammer someone and not be a d**k about it. Play nice. Being a jerk probably won't earn you the "L," but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and check my biases. If your best argument is something that I would not support in real life, you can run it and know that I will make every effort to fairly consider the argument, the way you argue it and its merits in the debate.
On vagueness and topicality: I have noticed a trend where the aff's plan text is essentially the text of the resolution but with a specific "whatever" (country, program, etc.,) stated within the "plan." This is not a plan. It is vague and if the aff is not willing to specify what they are or are not doing/curtailing/removing/adding/replacing, then I will absolutely be open to the argument that they are unfairly claiming and denying territory necessary to allow a fair debate. I won't vote on this if no one brings it up, but I think it's fair to expect an affirmative case to actually specify what it will do.
Thoughts on the email chain: I do not want to be on it. This is still a verbal activity. If you say something clearly and intelligibly enough for me to hear it, I will hear it and flow it. From time to time, I might ask you (during prep) to give me your tag or the name of the person cited. But if you say something so unintelligible that I can't understand it, I won't credit you for having said it and the fact that it might be on the email chain isn't going to change my mind. I might ask you to show me a card or cards at the end of the round so that I can make sure it says what I think it says or what you say it says. But I don't like the notion of crediting a verbal statement because I read it in an email.
Bottom line: I'm the arbiter of your arguments. While the above is a statement of my preferences, I'm more than happy to judge a debate outside those boundaries and you should feel free to argue your best stuff if I'm your only judge. If you find me on your panel, you should consider going for the other judges as I consider myself to be highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can just as easily judge one geared to impress college judges.
06JZ Hanson Paradigm
13JX Hassett Paradigm
Shawnee Mission East ‘17
Currently debating at The University of Kansas ‘21
Assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East
I am very expressive and you will know what I am thinking. Use that to your advantage
I appreciate jokes and confidence, but don’t cross the line
Disclosure is good
Tech over truth (a dropped argument is a true one as long as it contains a claim and a warrant)
I will not vote on anything that happened outside the round
Clipping or cheating of any kind will result in an immediate loss and 0 speaks
Please respect your partner. It is my biggest pet peeve to see one member belittle the other and act superior. You are only as good as your partner, and please act that way.
** Do whatever you want, my thoughts do not determine how you should debate
I was a 2A for a long time and because of that, I really appreciate well thought out aff’s with a strong internal link chain. If your evidence is bad/ internal links are weak how are you expecting to defend the aff? That being said I have stayed strictly policy and have rarely strayed from big stick impacts. I am open to listening to anything as long as you can defend and explain the aff. I think case debate is very important, too many teams don’t use the offense they have built to their advantage. Spend time extending your impacts and making cross comparisons to other arguments. I also really appreciate new and tricky policy affs that are unexpected.
T vs traditional aff’s
I am a big fan of T debates and feel that they can be particularly compelling and interesting. I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded by reasonability if done well. Spend time on impact comparison and explaining the violation, I am most persuaded by limits and precision impacts. T is never a reverse voting issue!
I've never read a planless aff and generally always go for framework or a CP. That being said I do find framework compelling and tend to lean heavily negative. Don’t think my predispositions mean you can get away with a shoddy job on framework and expect to win the round. I am most persuaded by fairness or limits based impacts and will award negatives who are able to explain their argument, 2N's that can give the speech primarily off the flow will be rewarded. I also appreciate different approaches to dealing with planless affs. Reading DA's and CP's against K aff's is cool and fun, you should do it. That being said, it is very easy for me to vote aff if you win your impact turn outweighs their impact or an interp that solves a lot of their offense.
With the exception of condo, I think all other theory based arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team. I will not vote on cheap shot theory arguments. 2 condo is good, 3+ I can be persuaded, but need a warranted and contextualized explanation of your interp and why it should not be allowed in debate.
Probably my favorite argument in debate. I think a 2nr that is a DA + good case debate is very compelling. I prefer specific links, but there are some instances when generics work too. You need updated evidence!! I will award teams who have obviously spent time cutting new and good evidence. Please make turns case arguments, this is vital in a DA debate. And yeah i like the politics DA.
I also love a good counterplan debate. I think specific counterplans cut from the other teams evidence is especially compelling and I will award you for that. I am neg leaning on a lot of counterplan theory questions, but i can be sympathetic. I am not the greatest when it comes to CP theory so make sure you explain your argument and interp.
The aff should get to weight the implementation of the aff against the K or the squo. I have not done too much K debating in my career and am not too familiar with literature outside of neolib, security, and generics. Do not expect me to be able to follow along with complex K’s as I am not too well versed in the K world.
Neg: It is fine to go for the K with me in the back of the room, but I want a clear explanation of the alt and the link. I think that specific links are particularly important and need to be utilized. Links of omission are not links.
Aff: please impact turn the K
Please feel free to email me with any questions
08JY Hunt Paradigm
16JY Hutch Paradigm
16JX Hutch Paradigm
12JZ J. Reed Paradigm
11JY Johnson Paradigm
Hey y'all - I assume you're here to figure out how I evaluate debate - all of that information is included below.
Addendum for College LD:
I think most of this information will apply to LD - most of my experience with LD is from the Kansas High School circuit, which is traditional in comparison to the National College circuit, but hopefully my description of how I evaluate policy arguments will help! Also please feel free to ask questions!
A few things about me as a person:
First and foremost, I would appreciate a content warning for domestic violence and sexual assault. I am employed by a school, because of that I am a mandatory reporter. Please consider this when sharing your narratives, personal communications, etc. with me. If you have questions about mandatory reporting, I will happily answer them!
Second, here's my short bio, I'm in my sixth year of judging and coaching in Kansas (four years at Shawnee Heights High School since graduating in 2014 and in my second year at Topeka High School). I debated the space topic, transportation infrastructure topic, and Latin America topic. I divided my paradigm into several categories - an overview of my paradigm, a list of arguments and how I feel about them, and general framing concerns. Any questions? just ask
Third, I am fine with speed. However, I am telling you right now that I will be unable to flow top speed without a speech doc. Also, I will not do the work to flow top speed theory, overviews or general analysis - slow down when you want me to pay attention. I'll be fairly apparent when I stop flowing. If it is especially bad I will clear you. I want to be on the email chain - email@example.com
I'm open/willing to hearing any type of argument (performance, critical, semi-critical, policy, etc.). If y'all don't provide me a framework for how to view the round or a Role of the Ballot that is clearly articulated and developed, then I will default into a policy maker mindset. If y'all are rude to each other, I will write about it on your ballot and most likely dock you speaks, ranks or even give you the L depending on the severity of your actions. I am easy to read as a judge so if you see me stop flowing or looking annoyed it probably means what you're doing is rude or doesn't make sense to me. I'm fine with speed, but clear tags and analysis are appreciated. I want you to be empowered to debate what you want to debate in front of me - this is your round, not mine.
How I evaluate Debaters and their actions:
I've developed a zero-tolerance policy if debaters are rude to any of the debaters in the round - expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round due to your behavior. You are accountable for the way you act so I don't feel like warnings are necessary. Additonally, I hold you accountable for the arguments you choose to read. Therefore, if your arguments are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or targeted towards any person or group in a negative-way, expect a reduction in speaks or losing the round. If you have questions about this, please ask me before the round starts - I want to make debate educational and inclusive.
I'm open/willing to listen to any type of affs. Non-T affs are fine IF they are rejecting the topic. If you are Non-T and upholding the use of the Fed Gov, you better have good T blocks written. Any aff needs to provide me with a clear method of how you solve and a way I should view the round.
When I wasn't taking politics in the 2NR, I was probably taking T. Every level of the T flow is important to me so you must extend and explain interp, standards and voters. Saying "we access fairness and education best" isn't going to win you the round. You need to tell me HOW you access fairness and education the best. I enjoy Topical Versions of the Aff, Case Lists and Core of the Topic args. If you can explain to me why your interp is better for fairness/education in this round and in debate in general, you'll have an easy time winning my ballot. Also, I probs default to competing interps.
Generics are fine, but I prefer them to have case-specific links (analytical or carded). When I was in high school, I ran politics disads and would often take them into the 2NR so I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them.
I get it, Delay CP is the strategic CP on the topic - lots of people run it and it is core neg ground. I am fine with listening to any CP, but you have to be able to answer why PICs are bad, Delay CPs are bad, Condo is bad, etc. I will vote on any of these arguments depending on the level of abuse in round. Otherwise, when running a CP have a clear net ben. Also, I'm fine with CP funding planks. I don't buy 2NC CP amendments, but I'll only vote against them if the aff makes an arg - make sure your plan text read in the 1NC makes sense and isn't just "the 50 states (insert plan text here).
I'm not familiar with most K lit so you'll want to develop clear analysis about the K. I am most familiar with Neolib, Cap and Security, but my familiarity DOES NOT mean I will do the necessary analysis of cards for you. In the rounds I've watched so far this year, framework has been underutilized by teams. Read framework!!! Explain your alts - your alt solvency is important and I won't vote on a blippy extension of Zizek.
You need a clear interp of what the framework or Role of the Ballot should be. There needs to be clash on the framework about why the aff/neg team's framework is good/bad for debate and for education/fairness in the round.
I'm not the judge to talk about aliens/wipeout/goos/etc in front of, but if you still feel inclined to do so, impact out your illogical args logically.
I view debate as an educational activity. I want the best education and most fair experience for both teams. Use this framework when explaining your theory arguments. Otherwise, anything you do to directly harm a debater in round will be counted against you because it conflicts with the aim of using debate as an educational tool.
01JZ Jouya Paradigm
Current Director of Debate at Mill Valley (Kansas)
Director of Debate at Andover Central (Kansas)
Director of Debate at University Academy and Lincoln Prep (DEBATE – Kansas City)
Coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College
Yes, email chain - sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom
If you use your phone as a timer and you use this as your ringer - NO POINTS, NO WINS! (That's like anti-ASMR)
- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.
- Truth > Tech. I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of "realistic impacts" or "reasonability" -- what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper.
Don't fret: if the 1NC drops case on your Cthulu Aff, you'll probably be fine to weigh against whatever stuff they got...
- As a coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.
Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:
- All speech acts are performances, consequently debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.
- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.
- Ethos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.
I’m personally quite annoyed at many judges who insert a “decorum” clause in their philosophy regarding the “need for civility.” These notions are quite loaded and make broad assumptions that ought to be unpacked and questioned, particularly if the deployment of this concern consistently villainizes certain subsets of debaters. I certainly believe debaters should show mutual concern for each other’s well being and ought to avoid condescension or physical/rhetorical violence – but I do not conflate this with respectability politics. Arguments are arguments and deserved to be listened/responded to regardless of mainstream notions of digestibility or the personal palate of an opposing team. In all honesty, some humour and shade have a place in rounds so long as they aren’t in bad faith. Please don’t misinterpret this as a call to be malicious for the sake of being cruel.
- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision
Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.
While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.
- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.
- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.
- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.
- I will vote on Framework. That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.
- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.
- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.
- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"
-Presumption is always an option. In my estimation the 2NR may go for Counterplan OR a Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both. I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that probably needs to be established prior to the 2NR. While I say that, I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR.
- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not.
If they fail to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.
- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.
- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like its interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).
I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments is not strategic, it is desperate.
- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.
- Probability is the most crucial components of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).
- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”
- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...
I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilize a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams then there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).
THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION
There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion as been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies requires an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.
Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.
03JY Jutt Paradigm
I debated at Blue Valley North in high school and at UMKC in college. I’ve been an assistant coach at BVN for three years now, led a lab last summer, and have judged about 50 debates on this topic. I don't have much of an ideological preference, and will evaluate all arguments. Here are some thoughts I have:
Evidence quality, comparative impact calc, and technical proficiency are important regardless of your arguments’ content. I dislike embedded clash.
Email chain: minhajutt1 @ gmail
Impact turning DAs/advantages is fine but you still have to do impact calc and evidence comparison for the turn, else the debate becomes difficult to objectively judge.
Responding to terrible internal links with impact defense seems less strategic to me than beating the internal link with alt causes/etc.
Conditionality is good, but the neg has to say judge kick is an option. Most cheating counterplans are fine if you can beat the aff on theory.
Impact calc still matters in T debates! Have defense to the other side’s standards, and explain why your offense outweighs/turns theirs. Be sure your interpretation resolves the offense you extend.
Your standards should be specific and impacted – list arguments their interpretation excludes and why they are good, explain which affirmatives their interpretation justifies and why including them in the topic is bad.
Everything I’ve said about topicality applies here. I also think the aff typically has to win that debating the resolution is bad and that good debates would occur under their model to beat framework. Negatives need defense to aff impact turns to topic education and fairness. Fairness is an impact, but you need warrants explaining why it is.
You can win that critical affs shouldn’t be allowed perms with nuanced, impacted standards like you would in a standard theory debate
Each link should have an impact. Critiques of plan focus/consequentialism seem more strategic to me than critiques with causal links, but I'll vote for any argument if you win it. Winning framework lets you determine the threshold for the negative to disprove the aff. Explain why your interpretation provides the best model for debate and compare their offense to yours. Explain why you should still win under their interpretation. ROB arguments are arbitrary and usually deployed to avoid clash – do impact framing instead.
06JY Keck Paradigm
09JZ LaMunyon Paradigm
I want to be on the email chain/flashed any shared files - firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated throughout high school and for a year at Emporia State. I'm most comfortable with policy arguments, but I have ran some Ks and read some literature. Overall, I’ll listen to most arguments as long as you can explain them well. Tell me how to vote and why. Don't assume that since you said it, you won it. I want clash. Prefer truth over tech unless told otherwise. If you don't extend warrants with your authors I'll assume you've dropped it. Please extend more than just an impact.
I really don't like nuclear war impacts, but I'll vote on them if you win them. Don't let this turn you away from running them if they're already built into your argument.
T - I enjoy good T debates, but don’t feel like you have to run it. Abuse and reasonability are big factors for me. Not a big fan of brightline. I think model for debate is a good reason as to why certain interps are bad. Voting issues need to be extended throughout the round for my vote. This is probably where my bias shows through most in the debate.
FW/Theory/Etc. - Enjoy these debates. Most things from T-specific analysis apply here. Real-world/logical explanations will usually win me over. RoB arguments are really intriguing to me and I’ll follow the role I’m given. I'll vote either way on most arguments. Examples of why you're right are useful. TVAs help. I'm willing to vote on most theory arguments as long as you can prove that something the other team has done is abusive in-round or creates a bad model for debate overall. I'll vote on presumption. I've started to enjoy reps debates and am willing to vote either way solely based on representations as long as it is a significant part of the debate and not just something that you tack on at the end of the 2N/AR (preferably start in the 2A/NC. Will vote on narratives and/or un-T affs if you win your reasoning.
DAs - Generics are fine as long as you can explain how the aff generally applies. I will vote for aff even if the DAs are won if the aff proves that their impacts outweigh.
CPs - Don’t have a problem with them. I need to see a clear, stand-alone net benefit; better solvency isn’t enough for me. I'm starting to dislike PICs, but I'll vote for them.
Ks - Like stated before, didn’t run many Ks, but have done a decent amount of reading/research over various arguments. Find these debates super interesting, but I don’t want to hear it unless you understand it. Explain your alt and what it means. If you're running it on the neg against a K aff, explain why it's different than the aff's alt. I ran Cap with a rejection alt, so my understanding is going to be best over that area, but I don't really care what you do. I also ran a nuclearism aff, so my knowledge of that has transferred over to the neg side. If you want to read a K based on language/action, please do it because of some legitimately derogatory, offensive, etc. language either from the debaters or from their authors. Reading these types of Ks will lead to more judge intervention because I will have to determine whether I believe there was any significant action/language that violated the K's thesis.
Impact Framing - I default to deontology, but I am willing to vote for util if you prove it's better. More willing to vote on probability, but again will vote on whatever if you prove that timeframe or magnitude is more important.
Case - Important. At the least, I want to see debate over the impacts. Neg case debate makes me much more willing to vote neg. I want to see the affs knowledge on their case and the resolution. I want the evidence and warrants extended or I'll assumed it's dropped. I've voted against multiple teams for not extending case.
CX/Roadmaps/Flashing/Etc. - Don’t care as long as you aren’t taking forever or blatantly stealing prep.
Delivery - I prefer anything up to a moderate/fast level, but don’t really care as long as your tags/cites are moderate and understandable.
Miscellaneous - Impact calc is necessary to get my ballot and I love good impact framing. Turns should be explained. If you claim abuse, I want examples. I prefer depth over breadth but will vote on whichever is won in the debate. I probably won’t vote on an argument if it’s most important pieces of evidence aren’t extended throughout the debate. I really hate when neither team does the important extensions because then I have the burden of deciding whether something was dropped or not. Analytics are fine. I don't evaluate any new arguments made after the 1AR. Don’t be rude. Ask me at the end of the debate if you want any comments on certain arguments and I'll be happy to give them, assuming it won't hold the tournament up. You can also find or email me post-round and I'll be happy to explain anything. (It's best to do this sooner rather than later because I will probably forget what happened in the debate.)
This is a work in progress, so ask me any other questions you might have and I’ll do my best to answer them.
14JY Larkin Paradigm
12JX M. Swanson Paradigm
Will Mercer Paradigm
I debated 3 years at Maize High and am currently in my fourth year of assistant coaching also at Maize High.
I will listen to and evaluate kritikal args (including performance affs) but there are probably better judges out there if you're a K team. Obviously I will evaluate run-of-the-mill Ks like Cap and Foucault, but don't assume I know all about your cyber queer theory matrix argument. That being said, a team that is obviously knowledgeable about the kritik they are running and does a good job at framing the round and providing alt solvency can certainly win. However, I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts unless the framing debate is done well. Answer direct questions in cx, try not to perf con or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). I don't love K v. K debates (framework makes the game work) but do what you must.
CPs and DAs
There absolutely is such a thing as a cheating counterplan. Competitive CPs only please. I like PICs bad arguments and I will often vote on them unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is, I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of, read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing). DAs should be unique.
I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for perf cons.
Explain your definitions. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. Yep, fairness and education are super rad but what has actually occurred to effect either of these things in the round. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.
In terms of other theory arguments like framing, disclosure, etc. I need to have voters and I need those voters to be proven more important than evaluating the policy. If a teams wins on the theory level but does not provide adequate voting reasons why this is important or does not provide reason as to why theory evaluation should predicate policy, I will ignore the theory debate in favor of policy impacts. I really don't want you to do those things, I really enjoy good theory debate. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a thing but need to be weighed against the initial theory claim.
CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.
I am okay with speed in basically every instance except for when we get to theory args made on the flow that need explanation. If it's intricate and not in the speech doc slow it down a bit, it will help you if I can understand what's going on. That being said I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I will yell clear if I can't understand you. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).
13JY Mitchell Paradigm
Parker Mitchell Updated for: MSHSAA Districts
He/They/She are all fine.
Plz don't shake my hand
Yes email chain, no flash chain
Equal chances on framework
Fairness is an impact but not the only impact.
Competing interps are best
There is NOT "always a risk"
I flow cx
Speed is good (except when accessibility/disability concerns)
Postround if you want
Quick PF/LD Paradigms moved to the top for MSHSAA Districts
I have limited LD experience, I debated it for a couple of years in KS and went to NSDA nationals.
Traditional LD makes little sense to me. I really don't get Value/Criterion, they simply read as impact framing args to me, so you should probably treat them as such. I'm more attracted to LARP/Phil and the wild west of progressive LD than traditional LD as these are more familiar to me.
Speed, Ks, plans are fine, LD theory is intriguing but somewhat new to me. Please, roadmap and signpost I will flow (on paper if possible).
Default to deciding whether the resolution is true or good unless presented with different ballot framing. Get creative: i find many LD topics are one sided and dull when played traditionally. T really can help out here.
I get a bit lost in this event. I will evaluate the debate technically using an offense defense paradigm unless persuaded otherwise. I will attempt to flow on two sheets (AC/NC). Your case should include offensive reasons to vote for your side, not just defense.
All debate events require clash or they are just oratory: That means whichever team goes second should explicitly answer the other team's case. The second round of speeches need to both extend arguments and answer opponents. Final speeches should include a brief overview with ballot instruction and also continue LBL work. Do not eschew clash for the sake of speaking pretty, that is a quick way to lose my ballot.
Debate is a game, I'm open to almost* any of strategy that will help you win that game. My ballot will probably decide whether the proposition of the affirmative is better than the proposition of the negative.
*exceptions: blatant/unapologetic racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism. I have only used this exception once because someone was defending George Zimmerman.
TOPIC SPECIFIC NOTE
This topic is more aff leaning than i expected, a couple theories why that can help your strategy:
1) Many disads on this topic lack external impacts (containment/appeasement etc.) Affs are often set up to beat these strategies, so Negs need to be trickier. T is a better option than you think, as are tricky or "cheating" CPs. Create offense.
2) In K debates, the negative has shied away from being hardline on framework. Framework is harder when the negative is afraid of their best offense. Win an impact and worry less about trying to accommodate the aff. Again, create offense. Same for the aff: worry less about the middle and more about your offense.
4 years of debate for Shawnee Mission East high school in Kansas, currently debating for the University of Missouri at Kansas City (5 years), asst coach at Shawnee Mission East (5 years), occasionally assist for the Asian Debate League (ADL). Also worked with DKC and Turner HS. 50+ rounds on the topic.
T: Often strategic. RVIs are bad, but I'm open to impact turns. Both sides should have an interp. I (almost always) evaluate under competing interpretations. I almost never consider precision separately from limits and ground debates, it strikes me as a framing argument.
CPs: Cheating CPs are "fine", win theoretical justifications+substance and you will win, probably not going to reject the team.
Statuses: Condo is good, dispo/uncondo is bad. Status theory is winnable, you need an interp and remember to ask. (n-x) interps are unpersuasive.
DAs: I've sat against the negative in some close debates with DA/Case strategies. I have difficulty assigning "minute risk" on disads if defense is persuasive and/or conceded. Winning requires a clean 2nr or significant defense.
Ks: The neg can critique both plan and non-plan parts of the aff. The aff can weigh itself. Work out nuances. I think I have a pretty good, but not universal, grasp on most critical literature in debate.
K Affs: They can be good. Framework is also good and strategic. Read topic specific note above...
Flowing: One sheet in the 1nc will remain that way. Each individual sheet will be straight down, overviews not separate. Don't give sub-orders ("interp, then tva, limits da" etc)
Speed: Speed is generally good. Maintain clarity. I may "clear" you a few times. I should hear the full body of the card.
CX: I flow cross-x. It's binding. Open > Closed. Won't pay attention to "flex prep," Ask questions during CX because I can't hold the other side accountable during "flex prep."
Language: The use of racial/sexist/homophobic/transphobic slurs, in any way other than as used by individuals who are affected by those slurs, results in 0 speaks and a loss. Be mindful of problematic (non-slur) language. Mistakes happen, but so must sincere apologies.
Postrounding: you are welcome to.
Ethics: Ethics challenges stop the round immediately and require proof. If the accused party did violate a legitimate challenge they will receive the loss and 0 speaks, the reverse is true if the challenge is illegitimate. Clipping is definitively a violation. I will surrender to tournament regulations.
Disclosure: I will orally disclose provided the tournament allows it. Please disclose pre-debate. It's good.
Prep: Flashing is not prep.
Speaks: I use CDR's points rubric, adjusting for estimated pool skill.
APPENDICES (LD/PFD paradigm see top)
Taylor Moore Paradigm
12JY Moser Paradigm
26JX Newby Paradigm
24JX Newman Paradigm
I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.
I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.
On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.
Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.
Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.
I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.
If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.
Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.
The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.
15JX Nickel Paradigm
Most recently, I debated for Washburn University for about a year (including LD, Worlds, and Parli). Before that, I attended Derby High School, where I debated at the varsity level for two years and competed in several forensics events at the varsity level for four years (including DX, Info, OO, and PFD).
Spread to your heart's content - I was in debate for too long to have an issue with speed, but please be clear and slow down on important content (plan texts, tags, perms, etc.).
I like to flow, so you should be flowing too. Flowing is how we all know what's going on in the round. If it's not on my flow (or you didn't make it clear enough in the round), then I have an issue weighing it/voting on it.
I'm fine with Ks - however, don't abuse this. Ks and K Affs are great when they make logistical sense in the round, but don't just start throwing them around because you don't know what else to do - that gets messy. Also, if you are running any form of a K, I would hope you would know it well enough to explain it fairly easily.
I'm fine with FW - I think it makes a lot of sense when you frame a round, and I especially appreciate it on the K debate.
I'm fine with theory - go wild. However, make sure you're being strategic with theory and not just throwing it out to have another off case argument because you can.
I'm not big on generics - if you are running off case arguments (or really any arguments), they better link and you better make it clear that they link. Give me a story, don't give me random tags.
I like to think that I'm pretty chill, so as long as you're chill and nice to other people, then we're going to have a good time. Feel free to ask me any questions at any time!
15JY O'Brien Paradigm
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 16 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
06JX Oatman Paradigm
Put me on the email chain please: email@example.com
Debated at Blue Valley West HS (2010-2012)
Debated at Blue Valley Southwest HS (2012-2014)
Assistant coach for BVSW (2014-2018)
Assistant coach at Lansing High School (2018-current)
~~I agree with Jamie Welch's view on prep and took this from her paradigm~~ i.e. debates are taking too long so here are things I consider as prep
--- Asking for a "marked doc" and "which cards did you not read?"
--- Answering CX questions after the timer goes off. I will give you a 5 second grace period, but just sit down. If someone didn’t plan enough time to receive an answer then that’s their fault. If you genuinely want an answer to your question, you can take prep for it.
-unless otherwise argued, judge kick is okay
-I will only do evidence comparison if explicitly told to in the debate. Please don't just say you're inserting a card. Read your ev, call for me to read it at the end of the round if you think the round should be decided based on it etc.
-Dropped arg is a true arg as long as the warrant is extended
-I believe that affs should be in the direction of the topic
-disclosure is good
More specific arguments-
-Whatever you decide to run, just apply it to the round you're in. I've been in too many debates recently where everyone is just throwing around buzz words but not applying it to the context of the round. This same point applies to the aff in the context of the perm debate (i.e. how does the perm function why is it a better option etc). I don't care what you read just contextualize it.
-I don't think that a link of omission is a link. My threshold is pretty high for this so if you do so feel compelled to go for this argument, just know you will need to dedicate a lot of time to it.
-I like to see a lot of work done on the alt debate in the block. I need to see clear arguments as to what the world of the alt looks like and why the alt solves better than the aff.
-I think fairness is more an internal link than it is an impact. (i.e. fairness is an internal link to topic education, clash, etc)
-In addition to framework there needs to be some sort of argument to indict the aff's methods. In rounds where this doesn't happen by the neg, I find the aff's argument to weigh the impacts more compelling. Read arguments as to why their theory is wrong.
-Competing interps over reasonability. Doesn't mean I don't vote on reasonability but I don't think enough teams do the work explaining what exactly would being reasonably topical look like in context to the roundor how voting on reasonability solves the impacts.
-Limits are universally good.
-You should slow down
-T-USFG is more persuasive to me than a framework arg.
-should be textually and functionally competitive with the aff
-I think the top of the 2NC/1NR should be explaining what the cp is or how it is different from the aff.
06JX Owens Paradigm
I am an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School. However, I don’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly work with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over two years. So I would not decide to pick it up anymore than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument however if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to. Policy maker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.
Torrey Parkins Paradigm
22JX Pena Paradigm
I debated for four years at Kansas State University, and three years in highschool at Garden City High School. I try to be as neutral as possible, and I will make my decision predicated on the things that happen in the round. That being said I embody a lived experience, and that experience follows me in every decision in life, so I will not pretend that I can seperate myself from that. I will, however, try to evaluate the debate as fairly as I can.
I think that debate is a place where students have the capacity to use argumentative creativity, and so I am willing to listen to a wide variety of argumentative styles. I will repeat what has been said many many times before - do not try to change the way you debate to move closer to what you think I would like. Yes, I have a particular debate style, but that does not mean that I will privilege this style of debate. Do you to the best degree possible, and I will be happy.
Below are some of the particularities of my judging philosophy
Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good specific disad debate. Generic disads are fine, but I expect specific links. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts somehow. This means explain to me why your scenario that leads to world war 3 is more important than their scenario that leads to extinction via global warming. I need to know how I should evaluate these arguments. I'm also not going to lie - I am not the most caught up on domestic politics so you should be explaining the specifics of your politics disad if that is important. Do not expect me to do that work for you, because that would assume that I read your scenarios. Chances are, I have not.
I love seeing specific advantage counterplans deployed strategically. I am fine with agent counterplans, but I would prefer them to be competitive. If your mechanism is techy and deep in the literature then I expect some explaination. I am not a fan of process counterplans, but I will vote for them if they are deployed well. Word PICS are cool, but you should have some basic theoretical defense to why PICing out of discourse is legit.
I enjoy them. Please stay grounded and do not travel too far into the level of theory without explaination of praxis. What I mean by this is you might have an awesome idea, but I need you to explain it to me in a way that I can apply to my life. Do not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpackaged. Explain how the alt solves the links/impacts.
I need a concrete interpretation, violation, and impact in the 2NR if you want to win this position. I am totally fine voting for topicality, but I expect the 2NR to explain a consistent story. I find permutation on framework interesting, and if you can explain it well then I will feel comfortable voting on this argument. I know there are some judges in Kansas who are saying that they will not vote for untopical affirmatives. I find this display a gross interjection that ruins the creative freedom debate is supposed to provide to students. I will respond to this by refusing to take the opposite position. I will try my hardest to evaluate framework fairly, and students should not be afraid to read this argument in front of me. That being said, I do still have expectations for you to win this argument, and I have no ideological issues voting for untopical aff if they win the debate with things like contextualized impact turns or a counter-pedagogy.
I can most likely keep up with your speed. I'll shout clear three times, and afterward I will flow what I can and feel no kind of guilt about missing arguments that I cannot catch.
I would like basic roadmaps. Please tell me where you are going. If this is not how you debate, that's coor too.
I'm cool with open cross-x, but I would prefer if the non-speaking partner does not answer all of the questions. It will hurt speaker points. Open cross-x is great, but it often turns into the second speaker continually silencing and belittling the first speaker. Let's please make sure this doesn't happen.
19JX Phrommany Paradigm
I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. I now coach for Manhattan High School in Manhattan, KS.
I am definitely a policy maker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high speed rounds.
Speed: Moderate speed is acceptable so long as tags are read clearly. I would prefer a round where I don't have to flow off of the speech doc. What is the point of having you stand up there and speak if everyone is flowing off of the speech doc?
Kritiks: While I would like to believe that I would vote for a good argument if it is a good argument. My understanding of the literature and conventions behind Kritikal debate is very minimal. Don't run a K with me as a judge, you probably won't enjoy how it turns out.
Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.
Counter plans. I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but i won't generally vote for super-generic counter plans like consult cp's. They strike me as a hair abusive.
Politics DA's: I'll evaluate the politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter.
Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefits me just as much as it benefits you all.
Reagan Propps Paradigm
05JZ Ray Paradigm
01JY Reeves Paradigm
Lee's Summit High School (MO) 18'
Mo State 22' (NDT/CEDA and NFA-LD)
Pronouns are They/Them.
don't shake my hand
"I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."
Tech > Truth
Don't have to affirm the USFG, but should be something about the res.
I know the general thesis of most K's, doesn't mean you get a pass on explaining them.
Theory is cool, condo is good to some extent.
Pen/switching flow time is good
average - 28.5, you can go up or down from there - if you send cards in the body of an email with yellow highlighting, -.1 speaks, gives me a headache and i am red-green colorblind so i literally cannot read it.
as long as you don't break tournament rules and everyone gives two speeches within time constraints, i don't care what you do
04JZ Riffer Paradigm
10JX Rodriguez-Hanley Paradigm
Debated 4 years at Shawnee Mission East
Currently debate at KU
Add me to the email chain -
Before I edited my paradigm (1/11/2020) I think it did a better job of explaining a lot of stuff that people dont really care about rather than the few things people check paradigms for, so I’m basically just listing off some takes I have about debate in descending order of what’s relevant
1. I think framework is a hard argument for me to gauge myself on - by that i mean if i was going for framework in front of myself i wouldn’t know a guaranteed way to get my ballot. Two things you should know are that a) I usually vote for K affs against fw, b) I almost 100% believe framework (neg) is a true argument when I try to rationalize how I think about debate. I think the big reason for this is because framework debates are much more technically demanding of 2ns to a degree that they often aren’t accustomed to, e.g. making difficult strategic decisions on what pieces of defense to go for (counterinterp doesnt solve, switch side, tva) how to frame case answers as defense to framework, and what pieces of offense to go for/how to frame offense in a way that outweighs impacts to the neg interp. One piece of advice that might help neg policy teams against a k aff when with me in the back of the room would be to do two things: think of why the counterinterp doesnt solve their offense (justifies a bad aff/set of affs) or you can think of reasons why they dont meet their interp - i feel comfortable voting on the traditional clash good tva switch side 2nr but there is a much higher chance of you winning in front of me if you’re right that their counterinterp is bad/they dont meet it. I’ll admit my threshold for this argument is maybe lower than it should be but until i learn enough about debate to know why this arg isn’t OP against K affs ill keep voting on it ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯
2. I’ll vote on anything but I won’t give speaks based solely on your ability to secure a dub. Obviously winning a theory argument that went conceded will win you the debate but depending on what that argument is, you may not get the best speaks for it. I think it’s important to encourage people to go for arguments that are good while also taking into account that debate is a competitive activity where people want to win and will do so however possible. How I determine the value behind particular strategies and if i think they’re good/bad for the activity is admittedly subjective, but if you flame me for it, take into account that I’ve been debating for longer than you have and my confidence in being correct will significantly overdetermine any complaints you may have. If you go for condo and give a fire speech I may even give you 29.5+ but if you make me vote on no neg fiat i probably wont give you above a 28.3. I also don’t think that I require a lot of time dedication to theory args in the last rebuttal, eg if the 2nr is 20 seconds of condo and the 2ar is at least 1 minute, i might still vote aff, which could give you the opportunity to win the rest of the debate even if i dont buy condo which will be more likely to increase speaks. This applies to other theory arguments that i would normally not give high speaks on (severence perms bad, t is an rvi, no neg fiat, advantage cps are cheating, vague alts bad)
3. If you go for death good please pref me so i can be the one to give you 0 speaks and a loss.
4. I tend to not like small affs or faux k affs. I don’t think they’re strategic against policy stuff or ks because impact framing against big das and cps is never contextual to the offense they read and you have to justify your reps against ks if they win framework anyway so you might as well at least have an impact that outweighs structural violence.
5. Policy vs K debates: I’ll just lay out what “arsenal” i think it’s best for the affirmative to have coming out of the 1ar - weighing the plan is good, the model of fiat is pedagogically valuable, 1ac impacts are real and cause harm (ideally, extinction), you should evaluate extinction before other impacts due to its irreversibility, perm do both, the thesis claims of the kritik are wrong/AT:ontology
6. Disads are great. Politics disads are even better. If I could change one thing about the things i hear in debates it would just be the allocation of time between framing arguments vs warranted analysis/cards. I think in rebuttals the actual descriptive claims you wanna go for need to be really EMPHASIZED. If I miss a piece of judge instruction in the 2nr that’s pretty low stakes but if i miss the warrant that you’re instructing me how to vote on, thats an issue.
7. CPs are kinda OP and sometimes cheating but also sometimes not. Advantage cps are valid af, process cps are ok, so are agent cps. Delay cp, courts cp, conditions cp, and multi-actor process cps are probably the most cheating, especially delay and conditions. If you’ve read this far into my paradigm I might as well say that for me to vote on theory pretty quickly, give some good examples of what kinds of cps they would justify and what they do for limits/fairness. Another thing is that most of the neg justifications to these counterplans don’t assume the way they massively abuse fiat. E.g. the authors who write lit that could theoretically check abuse for delay cps probably doesn’t assume that the only solvency deficit the aff would get would be timeframe T-(x number of days).
8. for aff teams who don't read a plantext and want to know how I feel about framework: I probably wont think that the model of debate you're likely going to forward would actually be better for the activity. That said, my win-rate for K teams against a framework 2nr is somewhere around 5-1 (not good data bc k teams usually have experience in more competitive pools but it's a stat worth considering). I think the more frustrated you make the aff at their inability to explain the utility of policy debates, the funnier, and I like giving speaks for that (plus it's a good way to preempt answers to their offense). I tend to think that the most exploitable part of k affs is the counterinterp paired with explaining why the ballot is necessary to fully realize the "impact" of the aff's critique of the topic/debate. A trend I've noticed with teams in highschool (and college) who don't read a plantext is a solid explanation of how the rest of debate operates in conjunction with the affirmative (as in not just the 1ac, but the actual iterative process of debating, plus the ballot). If you can explain to me why the affirmative is good, why debating it is good, how the negative ought to be expected to respond, and why the ballot is necessary for that, you’re in a good place to not lose
1. Not everything that I or any judge tells you is necessarily good advice. I think improvement in debate is a unique and personal thing that requires a lot of self-reflection. No two people think about debate in the same way and that's part of why I like it. Implications of that: I understand that the strategy that maybe I would have chosen to execute in a debate round isn't a) the ultimate best or b) the one that fits the style of debate that you like to practice.
2. Debate is supposed to be fun. I'll never understand people who go into debates genuinely (or seemingly genuinely) upset at what they're doing. If you have fun, the round is more fun, judging is more fun, etc. Debates that are fun to watch are so much easier to deal out higher speaker points to.
3. Everything in my paradigm is true only to an extent - ****good arguments change my opinions all the time so if you think you're right about something go for it - I try to make an effort to check my biases toward particular arguments****
Try not to be problematic. Debate is a competitive space in which we all try to have fun / escape the chaos of reality, so don't bring toxic behavior into it.
0-26 - you did something really shitty in round
26-27.8 - below average
27.8-28.5 - average
28.5-29 - good/great
29-29.5 - exceptional
I won't give above a 29.5 unless I'm absolutely blown away by the performance of the debater. I'm doubtful that I'll be rewarding a 30 to anyone ever
Don’t clip 0 speaks and loss.
Don’t be a dick - that was in the overview.
Don’t be rude in cross ex - that includes one partner doing all of cross ex - defo not a fan of one partner thinking they're smarter than the other.
Jillian Roy Paradigm
02JY S. Mojica Paradigm
One debate judged - 2018 immigration topic - Blue Valley Northwest Invitational
25JX Schultz Paradigm
Lauren Schultz, Assistant Coach at Olathe East High School
I debated for three years in high school (two years as a policy debater) at Liberty High School in Missouri. I didn't debate in college, but this is my second year of judging.
I generally prefer a more traditional style of debate and I think that on-case arguments are important, but I also think that disads, CPs and T are effective when argued well.
I prefer that debates stay away from Kritiks and theory, as I don't have the background to follow these arguments with ease. If you run these arguments please make sure they are well-explained.
I'm okay with speed but would prefer that you slow it down a bit during analytics and explanations of arguments.
01JZ Sedgwick Paradigm
I have been an English teacher for almost 20 years. During that time I have taught communications classes as needed at my school. I also have experience with public speaking as a student and sponsor in various activities. This is my first year serving as an assistant debate coach so I am familiar with the current year's topic. I would say that when I judge a round I am more of a policy maker.
Michael Shelton Paradigm
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations, so that's cool.
General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.
Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless you win that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.
Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)
- Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
- Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
- Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
- Cross Examination - Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments. Be polite.
- Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't take it upon myself to police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.
Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)
- CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
- Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
- Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
- Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
- Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."
Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)
- Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
- Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
- Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
- You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is not a bad thing.
- Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
- The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
- I will read along during speeches and may double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.
Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)
- Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
- It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
- A round is a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions, you'll win more times than you'll lose.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Jamie Smith Paradigm
03JX Smith Paradigm
14JX Tahmasiyan Paradigm
Please add me to the chain: email@example.com
I do my best to evaluate the round without intervening personal ideals. I enjoy how different arguments take different strategic developments and want to see you develop whatever argument you are best at because that will be the most fun for all of us. Speed is fine but slow down when you are trying to emphasize an issue or when debating theory/dense portions of the flow (proper signposting helps tons here). I wont follow you on the doc, I want them for reference but will attempt to decide with as little reading as possible. If I can't flow you then i will set my pen down and clearly not be flowing.
Be nice to each other.
18JX Thomas Paradigm
KU debater 2017-present.
i think affs should be topical and am neg-biased in t debates vs affs with no plans, but my voting record in those debates is pretty even. i think neg arguments about competitive equity / fairness are most compelling, but i also think winning those impacts can be tricky if given enough scrutiny by the aff. i am very particular in framework/t debates, so it isn't an auto-win just because you said "the aff should be t" - if you poorly execute framework/t, my ballot will reflect it
thoughts on t generally - affs need more offense. frontlines almost always seem way too defensive, which makes it basically impossible to win without reasonability, and to be honest i am yet to hear a compelling reasonability argument
assume i don't know what your k is talking about because i probably don't
i will always default to an offense/defense framing of arguments unless i'm told otherwise, but honestly i'm not super sure what other coherent framing there is to evaluate arguments
conditionality is almost always good
Kelly Thompson Paradigm
I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (3rd year at FS, 11th year as a head coach, 19th year in Policy Debate)
*Please add me to the email chain if one exists. I won't read along but I will read cards that have been contested during the round to make meta-decisions. firstname.lastname@example.org and Lfsdebate@gmail.com
I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.
-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I won't clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges.
-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.
-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.
-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.
-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.
Some top level thoughts as we enter the Arms Sales topic:
1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. I always forget to tell people this at the beginning of the year, then I have to watch sloppy/shallow debates until I remember. If you read new arguments in the 2NC (or 1NR) as a "strategy", you are making the debate round worse. If the other team does not further an argument about it (WHAT! Neither team read my philosophy), I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.
2) This topic is pretty big and I think T ground is pretty bad for the negative. But - there is strategic value to reading T arguments to ensure links to Disads and competition for CPs.
3) Prep Time: Prep stops when the document is saved to your jump drive or the email is sent. It does not stop when you're "ready" and "just flashing". If you stop prep, and then restart it, its evident you've stolen prep in the interim. I get irrationally irritated about this practice and your speaker points will reflect it. Flowing during "flash time" is stealing prep and cheating. Your speaks will be docked accordingly. Finally, putting flows in order is part of prep time. Saying the order is not.
4) I do not enjoy giving long-winded oral criticisms or RFDs. I will default to tournament protocol - but most of my comments will be on Tabroom. If you struggle to access those after the tournament - email me.
5) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.
General thoughts about debate:
-People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.
-People should deploy extensive impact calculus regardless of the arguments furthered in their final rebuttal. It is incredibly difficult to evaluate education v. fairness absent work done by the debaters, and I'm not comfortable intervening in doing so. I've found myself leaning negative in debates where this fails to happen because the aff has failed to articulate an impact to voting aff (presumption).
-My speaker point scale has tended to be:
29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournamnet
28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds
28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.
27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.
27 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.
**I've found that the best way to boost your speaks on my ballot is to demonstrate that you understand the nexus points of the debate and/or when the debate has resolved itself through your argumentative prowess. Often, this means strong/specific overviews, and can sometimes mean not utilizing all of your prep/speech time when the flow of the debate indicates it is impossible for your opposition to come back in the round. (EG - if the 1AR drops a topicality argument in its entirety, and you use 4 minutes of prep for the 2NR and give a 5 minute 2NR speech - you have not demonstrated mastery of the flow.
An argument requires a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Saying "extend my link" is not an argument and likely will not warrant evaluation from me.
Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives. I'm equally likely to vote on a critique of topicality as I am a T argument against a blatantly topical affirmative.
Critiques- I'm fascinated by K debates and the literature, but also am just not being as smart as a lot of other coaches/debate people. As such, the two biggest issues for the negative are assuming I know your K and assuming I understand your alt. The 2NC (or 1NR) should be primarily focused on explaining how the alternative functions and either how it solves the aff or how your framework disengages the aff impacts. K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. The two biggest issues for the affirmative are assuming a permutation is the only viable answer to the link and also assuming that the 2AC can be defensive.
Counterplans - PICs are good, word PICs are typically not. That does not mean I won't vote for them - I just don't like them and find "pic's bad" to make sense in a world of word pic's.Other counterplans should be aff specific - I think generic CP's without specific solvency evidence (XO, States, Consult) are poor choices I've often found myself believing that process CPs are plan plus or normal means in many cases.
Critical affs- I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.
03JZ Welch Paradigm
Yes I want to be on the chain: email@example.com
I have been pretty grumpy lately about how long debates are taking so here are things I consider prep (and that I will start your prep for)
--- Asking for a "marked doc" and "which cards did you not read?"
--- Answering CX questions after the timer goes off, just sit down. If someone didn’t plan enough time to receive an answer then that’s their fault.
Soft left affs: If your answer to disads is “but the framing page!” you will get very bad speaks and most likely lose. If you use your framing page and then also make specific arguments against the disad then you are in a better spot. Framing pages encourage lazy debating. Don’t be a lazy debater.
Theory – Conditionality is good. Lean neg on basically all theory because most amounts to rejecting the argument. I always believe in judge kick. I think it’s the affs job to tell me not to kick things and explain why.
Ks – Didn’t read a lot of Ks, but I think they are strategic arguments and necessary for the neg. I don’t think the alt has to solve anything. Winning links to the plan is best but if you win a link to other things the aff has done and it has an impact then I will vote on it.
FW/T – Fairness is an impact. Limits matter. That doesn’t mean because you don’t read a plan I won’t vote for you but rather what it means to be topical is up for debate. Without a solid interp of what “your model of debate” would look like I am less likely to vote on your impact turns. Give judge direction on how to evaluate your arguments versus things like topical version, switch side, procedural fairness, limits, etc.
08JX White Paradigm
I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.
You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.
I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.
Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.
Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.
Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.
Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.
CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.
Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.
Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.
I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.
My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.
My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.
I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.
Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.
01JX Winker Paradigm
About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Regardless of my background and argument preferences, in every round I will always vote for the team that did the better debating and not the team who read the arguments I like the best or am most familiar with. I try to evaluate every debate as objectively as possible. So you do you, and I'll do my best to keep up and make a fair decision.
Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me and I'll read cards, but the way you debate the evidence is more important to me than the evidence itself.
Please be respectful of one another. I know debates can get heated, but there is a difference between confidence/assertiveness/being sassy and being mean - if you can't figure out that difference, then just be nice. Problematic behavior will result in speaks that reflect it.
I will say upfront that I don't know much of the literature beyond stuff like neolib/security. This will put a higher burden on you in terms of explanation since I don't have the background knowledge, but I do have a decent amount of experience judging K's/K affs. If you want to go for it, slow down (!!) and don't use buzzwords/acronyms that I won't understand.
Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming - this is the most important thing to me when making a decision and I think this is an area people don't cover thoroughly enough. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. Good line-by-line is important. I will let the affirmative weigh the case unless I'm given a convincing reason not to do so.
Framework vs. K affs - I think that affirmatives should probably defend a topical USFG action. If not, the aff needs to at least be in the direction of the resolution. A predictable stasis point is necessary for productive debates. I need a clear explanation from the aff of the role of the ballot and why debate is the necessary space for the argument you're making. I am usually pretty persuaded by the TVA if it's done well, so the aff needs to explain why the TVA can't access the same impacts as they can. Neg teams should actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison - a lot of times it's hard for me to evaluate the round at the end because there has been so much back and forth on general things rather than specific line-by-line/clash/contextualization/etc. Reading your pre-written FW blocks at top speed without actually applying it to the aff doesn't do much for me.
The more aff-specific, the better (duh). I will reward you/give more leeway on creative counterplans and ones with recut 1AC ev. They need to be competitive and should probably have a solvency advocate - if it doesn't have one I'll have a much lower threshold for voting aff on solvency deficits. I default to judge kick unless I am told otherwise. I think process, delay, and consult counterplans are generally sketchy, but if the aff doesn't push on theory or you can win the theory argument, then I'll vote for them.
I generally think that condo is good but that isn't to say I wouldn't be persuaded otherwise, especially when it starts to get excessive (i.e. 3-4+ advocacies, kicking a bunch of plan planks, etc.)
Not a huge fan of T when it's against big topic affs but I think it can be very strategic when utilized against smaller/less clearly topical affs. Make the flow clean, explain your impacts clearly, and be clear on what your interp includes/excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides. I default to viewing T in terms of offense/defense but will vote on reasonability if it makes sense.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!
07JX Woodcock Paradigm
Debated at the University of Kansas (3 years) | Assistant at Shawnee Mission South
I'm fine with speed. K affs are a legitimate strategy, but I do find myself having a bias for framework (i.e. should things break even - which hardly happens - I would probably vote for framework). K's are fine, but links to plan action are preferable (unless your framework convinces me otherwise). I strongly dislike it when you're being a jerk and your speaker points will reflect this if you are being one.