Washburn Rural Debate Invitational

2019 — Topeka, KS/US

Art Alaras Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chris Aspegren Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ashley Badia Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Randall Bailes Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jacin Bailes Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Gary Baldridge Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Pamela Beach Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Marjorie Beebe Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Todd Boyd Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kelli Bradbury Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Rodney Bradbury Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Leyton Brunner Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Melvin Campmire Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tommie Cassen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Yvonne Castro Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Crystal Chapman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kevin Cole Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Edward Collazo Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nathan Conley Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nicole Cook Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Angela Davis Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dennis Dobson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Deborah Edelman-Dolan Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Carrie Emler Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Eric Field Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dru Finney Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jamie Fritz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anna Fritz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jesse Gosney Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dave Head Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ethan Herrick Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dale Hosman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

John House Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kim Jalosjos Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Hannah Johnson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mick Johnson Paradigm

6 rounds

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

Danny Jones Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kyle Kessler Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ken King Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Russell Krommings Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Rebecca Larson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stuart Little Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Nathan Lynch Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Brandon Macha Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kalpesh Maru Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Geera Maru Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

John McHatton Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Beth McNamee Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mike Mercer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Doug Miller Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amy Naylor Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sibongile Ndhlovu-Siwila Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Trey Peat Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kelly Perry Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Margaret Poling Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jeremy Poling Paradigm

Not Submitted

AJ Pyle Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Carly Rasmussen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mallory Raugewitz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Angie Rea Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alexandra Reilly Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Shannon Reilly Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Samantha Ruble Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Laura Schafer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ariel Scherer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mateen Shah Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kyle Simmons Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Cindy Sims Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Eric Skoglund Paradigm

Updated September 2019. Yes email chain - eskoglund AT gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE


I debated in high school at Olathe South, briefly in college at the University of Kansas, and am currently the Director of Debate at Olathe Northwest High School in Kansas where I am in my 14th year of coaching high school debate, primarily on a local circuit.

The first rule of paradigms is that we, no matter how much we judge and coach, do not know ourselves as fully as we would like to. I am always learning more about this game, as I hope you are. Because of this, everything you read here is a default position, and I can be argued out of nearly anything you see below. Like many of my peers, as I get older, I find I have become more concerned with the truth value of the claims you're making. Your evidence and spin are obviously major components of shaping my understanding of the truth in the round.

Affirmative Burdens
I think the aff has a burden to relate to the resolution. The easiest way to achieve that is to propose a plan for policy action. Whatever your advocacy, all affirmatives obviously need to be prepared to defend why their approach is best for debate. Even absent specific negative argumentation, if I end the debate unclear about the meaning of an affirmative ballot, I am likely to negate on presumption.

Negative Burdens
By default my negative ballot will stand for supporting whatever is advocated in the 2NR. I will not judge kick without a bit of theoretical reasoning as to why that's appropriate for me to do. I tend to think of K alts in much the same way I think of counterplans. If your strategy relies on your alt being viewed in a different way, you will need to do a lot of work to help me get there.

Speaking
Don't clip cards. If you can't read at the speed you want without clipping, then read slower. I will probably ask for your speech docs and will only be using those to monitor clipping and to evaluate evidence quality when it's in question, NOT to fill in my flow.

I won't say "clear" but will give you obvious nonverbal communication if I'm not with you.

Theory, overviews, and other things where you want me to listen to every word you are saying should be presented more slowly than reading evidence. Failure to do this will probably result in you asking me questions after the RFD such as "how did you evaluate this argument" and my answer being "I didn't because I didn't hear you make it". That's a frustrating time. Try to avoid it. I'm a pretty good flow but I can't transcribe full text at 350 wpm.

Argumentative Choices
I like kritiks better than my reputation would probably tell you. I'm not very well read in the literature base as most of my teams tend towards the policy side of the Great Divide. I am more likely to comprehend your alternative if it literally functions within the debate space (as in a reps type situation) or if it can be imagined as some kind of a policy choice. If your A strat is to read a high theory K that relies upon me knowing Baudrillard as well as or better than you, then well I hope you have a B strat because that will be really hard for you.

I will vote on topicality and tend to prefer a competing interpretations framework. I will generally evaluate "reasonability" as the idea that there can be multiple acceptable interpretations. If you don't meet any interp in the round, you probably aren't "reasonably topical". I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded that topicality ought not be a prior question to my decision, but you're certainly welcome to try.

In order to be a viable argument, theory needs to be contextualized to the round in front of you. If you're just reading robot blocks back and forth, I'm not likely to do a whole lot of work to try to help you.

I don't think that you need to necessarily spend all 5 minutes of your final rebuttal on T or theory in order to win my ballot, but this is definitely dependent on how the argumentation has developed throughout the round.

Fundamentally, too many teams assume they're winning every argument and so they don't frame arguments in the "even if" layers that are so important to accessing your judge's understanding of what's happened in the round. The more you can break free of this, the better you will be.

Current Events in Debate
I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. However, I am generally unconvinced by disclosure theory as an argument in the round, especially if you rely on first establishing that X level of disclosure is the correct level.

Flowing
A lot of you aren't flowing. Or you flow from the speech doc. That's a bad idea. Your speaker points will suffer mightily if you respond to arguments that were not presented - and even worse if you answer an argument the other team explicitly conceded.

The current trend of massive pre-written overviews doesn't work well for persuading me. Overviews are good but I would prefer they simply be a summary of the arguments you're extending in the context of the current round, then more line by line as you move down the flow. I think you usually shouldn't be reading a bunch of cards in an overview. I know this is a dinosaur thing to say but it's how I understand the round so there it is.

I very strongly prefer line-by-line argumentation to "whole sheet of paper" approaches to a debate. Through the choices you make, I want to see interaction with THIS round and THIS debate. A pre-written 1AR/2NR/2AR overview will usually nuke your speaker points, doubly so if I identify the same text between the 1AR and 2AR.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I can handle speed and policy-style argumentation, but I may be a bit cranky about them. I do believe that LD is a distinct event from policy debate and should be treated as such. In this limited time frame, you will do best to focus on a clear thesis that you can demonstrate to me that you understand.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

Matthew Songs Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Patrick Sonnier Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Natalie Sorton Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mason Spader Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Deanne Stewart Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anna Swift Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tamara Taylor Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mark Taylor Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jordan Teufel Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

ZoAnn Torrey Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mike Vars Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Becky Wagner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Faye Wagner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

David Walker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Janna Walpole Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Maggie Walshire Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Greyson Waltmire Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Geroge Warren Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Matt White Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jim Wilburn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

John Williams Paradigm

8 rounds

Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate.

I’ve done debate for a long time and I’ve done every form of debate including NDT-CEDA, NPDA-style Parliamentary debate, Lincoln-Douglass, and Worlds at KCKCC and Washburn.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted and disproven if I am persuaded by the function of that particular argument. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances.

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content. If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here.

I am more interested in your argument than your author. Avoid name-dropping your author in order to try and win an argument without doing the analysis that makes it an actual argument (an argument is claim, data, warrant. No warranting means the evidence you’re using has no true application in this space). This is an odd trend in debate that should be limited.

Flashing is not considered prep time. Cross-ex can be determined to be ran however the debaters are most comfortable and it is up to them to decide.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, watch the acoustics in the room as I have an audio-processing disorder and if you are not clear I cannot flow you. Also, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I have a low threshold to vote on it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments. Oh, and reasonability is composed of two parts: topic literature and grammar of the resolution. If you just say "we are reasonably topic...like come on" I will probably not vote for you.***

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated. If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Framework: I also love framework, but your blocks better be updated and stop using arguments from 2005 that K affs collapse high school programs and that this is the wrong forum. The debate has evolved since then. I believe framework is a criticism of the affirmative’s method, but it also can be utilized as theory or a counter-advocacy if paired with the correct arguments. Utilize a T version of the aff to win my ballot.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. I am okay with presumption (I have gone for it many times myself) but it needs to be utilized correctly. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. They compete through net benefits, textual competition is a joke 99% of the time. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change. I believe condo is good, good luck proving otherwise. Other theory is acceptable if adequately proven (Delay/PICs bad).

Criticisms/Performances: I was a performance/K debater, so I am familiar with most lit you will be running. Do not ever run this as a “gotcha” or to push the other team out of the round. It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that positionality if you are not that positionality, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Any other questions just find me and ask.

Kate Willingham Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Breck Zeyer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kara Zeyer Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted