Barb Anderson is an Assistant Debate and Forensics coach at Blue Valley Northwest High School. Ms. Anderson stresses communication, logic, and credible evidence over speed. Eye contact and persuasion are preferable to resolving issues. Please adapt accordingly.

My email is carolynsearscook@gmail.com carolyncook@smsd.org and I think it would be awesome for you all to start the email chain before I get to the debate so that we don't have to waste time doing it once I arrive:)

I debated in high school in Kansas from 1999-2003 (SME). I coached high school debate throughout college but did not debate in college. I was the director of debate at Lansing High School where I coached and taught from 2009-2018. This (23-24) is my 6th year directing and teaching speech & debate at Shawnee Mission South.

I dislike when debaters are mean. This activity is awesome--I believe that it pushes us and makes us better thinkers and people--and debaters cheapen that opportunity when we choose not to respect one another. Please just be kind humans.

I learned to debate and evaluate debates as a policy maker but also find that I much prefer seeing you do what you do best in rounds. That being said, you know your lit and arguments better than I do (at least you should). So:

1. If you don't think the aff should get to weigh their 1AC against the criticism, you have to tell me why--same if you think that we should abandon the topic as the aff.
2. If you want me to evaluate an argument and your 'warrant' is described as a specific term: that one word is not a warrant. . . you should include a description of WHY your claim is true/accurate/means you win. Debates that are heavily reliant on jargon that I am unfamiliar with will result in me being confused.
3. If you do little work on literature (especially lit I am not familiar with), please don't then expect me to do a bunch of work for you in the decision.

You should clearly articulate the arguments you want to forward in the debate--I value persuasion as an important part of this activity.

Please be organized--doing so allows me to focus on the quality of argumentation in the round. Debates are so much more fun to watch when you have a strategic approach that you execute with care. Talk about your evidence. Warranted and strategic analysis that demonstrates your understanding of your own arguments, and their interactions with your opponent's, make debates better.

I default competing interpretations on Topicality and think T debates should include case lists and topical version of the aff. I think that weighing impacts is important. I also just enjoy good case debate. I tend to find consult and and condition CPs to be cheating...but you still have to answer them. You should always answer conditionality.

I really prefer that you are as explicit about HOW you would like for me to evaluate the debate and WHY this approach is best.

Please speak clearly... if you are incomprehensible my flow will not be great and the quality of my evaluation of the round will likely decrease.

email chain: ethan.eitutis@gmail.com

>>If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.<<

I debated for 4 years for Cindy Burgett at Washburn Rural High School where I graduated in 2017. I coached for Annie Goodson at Blue Valley West for 4 years. I went to KU, studied Political Science, and graduated in 2022.

I will not do any work for you.

You can read fast but don't go 100%. I need to be able to understand your tags and analytical arguments, especially during online debates. I'd much rather you make 3 good, thought out, real arguments than 6 garbage ones. Getting through your T shell in 2.8 seconds is cool I guess but I won't be able to flow it.

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Extending claims without warrants is not making an argument.

I am familiar with Cap, Security, Abolition, and some SetCol. I'll gladly listen to whatever K you read, but for ones outside of those 4 I will probably just need some explanation.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1nc hoping that the 2ac will undercover one and you'll win that way. That's bad for debate and horrible to listen to. I wish aff teams would make args about this in the debate. If your arg is that pqd stops nuisance lawsuits about naval sonar, and naval sonar kills horseshoe crabs which are key to the survival of the human race, perhaps you should lose. Stop it

((I'm not saying affs should make speed bad or condo args, I'm saying affs should make args that pqd -> sonar -> horseshoe crabs -> human extinction is bad for debate))

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

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 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. Seriously. Spoon feed me the K and I will happily vote on it, but you should assume my understanding is, um, "not advanced." Here is where I blatantly steal a line from the paradigm of Jeff Plinsky: My policy maker lens is difficult for me to put down here, so you had better be able to tell me how your advocacy can actually solve something. In a K v K debate, this still applies - you need to prove you actually solve something.

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/cannibalism/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 is topical. Please note: I am not telling negative teams that I want them to run topicality. That is your decision. I am just telling you that I will vote on it if you win it.

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 delivered. 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. Do not abuse this. If I think that you're purposely spreading them with inconsistent arguments just to force them into a time suck and not running the argument in good faith, I will not be happy about it and you will bear the consequences of my unhappiness. For example: I once watched a team run the thinnest of topicality shells in the 1NC. They basically did little more than say "topicality" and read one definition and that was it. No voters, no standards, no warrants. That forced the aff to answer in the 2AC and left the neg in a position to have forced the timesuck or blow up topicality in the 2NC. That, to me, was faithless argumentation by the neg. Don't do that.

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 loss, but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. This is intended to be a very strong warning against racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Engaging in those things will get you an L even if you might have otherwise won the round. 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. Edited to add: I REALLY MEAN THIS ONE. I find it very frustrating when an aff not only doesn't say in the 1AC what it is exactly that they're doing, but then refuse to answer (or not know the answer) when asked about it on cross. Affs should not do this and negs should beat the snot out of any aff that tries this.

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, for example) 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 also judge one geared to impress college judges.

Thank you for allowing me the privilege of watching and judging your debate.

I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.

I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.

Standard things:

I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!

Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.

Kritiks- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.

Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..

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

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

(DEBATE - Kansas City)

(NSDA - East Kansas)

Yes, email chain - kevinjaykinsella@gmail.com

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

PHILOSOPHY:

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

AGRESSIVENESS:

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

SPEED:

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

EVIDENCE:

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

KRITIKAL DEBATE:

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

COUNTER PLAN:

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

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Experienced former competitor and coach in debate and forensics. While my experience is primarily in forensics, as a policy debate judge I’m familiar with and open to all types of arguments (disads, counterplans, critiques, etc.). I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, in that I will vote on any argument to decide a round assuming the teams have framed it as a primary voting issue. That being said, I rarely vote on procedural arguments like topicality. When it comes to speed reading I can’t keep up like I used to. It’s ok to read fast, but try to keep it around a 7/10 so I can keep up.

jessealankc@gmail.com

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20 years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit policy & PF. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

Public Forum Paradigm

Short Version

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs in a timely fashion BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, I will be sad, any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
5. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
6. I'm OK w/ theory - IF IT IS DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

Long Version

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. Additionally, I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Two caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y").

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - I tend to come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This is the way to do that.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

7. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

8. Evidence citations

You should probably read the citations according to whatever the NSDA says, but I’m not likely to vote on any irregularities (e.g. no date of access) unless the abuses are proven to be especially egregious and substantive in the round.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20 years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - they rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

I am the head debate coach at Lyndon High School in Kansas. I was an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School for 23 years. However, I didn’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly worked with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over four years. So I would not decide to pick it up any more 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 a Policymaker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

I debated 4 years in high school from 2011-2015 at Blue Valley Southwest (KS) and 3 years in college from 2015-2018 at the University of Kansas. During college debate I also coached/judged at high school tournaments in the KC area. Currently I am a community coach at Chicago Bulls College Prep.

I read policy arguments, but am not opposed to k debate. Do whatever style you are most comfortable with. If you can convince me of an argument, then I'll vote for it (within reason).

General:
Do whatever you're good at, I don't care.
-Speed: Yes.
-Disclosure: Yes
-Open Cross-X: Yes

Policy Debate:
This is the style I am most familiar with.
-Topicality: I think team's should be topical, but I also believe that it's up to the other team to prove why.
-Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans a lot. Open to hearing theory on 'cheating' CPs, however I think CP theory is usually a reason to reject the arg and not the team.
-Disads: Remember to have impact calculus on both sides. Explain why your disadvantage outweighs the advantages of the 1ac.

K Debate:
I will listen to kritiks on both sides.
Top leveling framing is important (how do I evaluate the debate?).
Affirmative- I am a policy debater so I evaluate the K similar to how I would evaluate any other policy argument. Win your impacts/framing.
Negative- I think that kritik should try to have a specific link to the affirmative and do their best to engage it. Links of omission do not persuade me. Teams should explain how the alt interacts with the impacts of the 1ac otherwise the K just becomes a non-unq da.

Theory:
I'll vote on condo if that's what it comes down to.
For most other theory args, I am more likely to reject the argument instead of the team.

My Dog:

/// IPDA / BQD / PF / Congress / Lay LD Paradigm ///

Background

My background is in policy. Due to this, I am biased towards technical argumentation. Regardless of format, I will take detailed notes on the specifics of your arguments and will weigh them alongside the rhetoric of the debate. I will adjust for formats as needed, and will weight rhetorical ability higher in formats where it is more important.

Below is my background for formats other than policy.

IPDA & BQD: I have zero background. I have never judged or debated these formats.

Congress: Extremely limited background. I will judge you almost exclusively on your rhetorical ability here.

PF: I am more experienced with PF, however, the format of PF means I will weigh rhetoric more heavily. I tend to take a tabula rasa approach to PF judging and try to put myself in the shoes of a standard 'member of the community'.

LD: I did a good bit of LD in high school. It has been awhile since I have judged LD, but, my policy paradigm is applicable here. I will weigh tech more heavily in these debates.

General Paradigm

Respect is paramount. Debaters should be cordial and sportsmanlike. Malicious and/or personal attacks against your opponents are unacceptable.

You're welcome to ask questions pre-round if you would like. It will not influence the debate.

I try to approach judging as tabula rasa as possible and withhold my own personal biases and beliefs when rendering a decision. I view the debate space as a testing ground for new ideas, and because of this, I think that unique viewpoints ought to be explored. That said, I believe that all arguments must be backed by a substantive and reasonable warrant, and all arguments ought to have a reasonable degree of truth value. The best debates I have seen are ones wherein the direct warrants of arguments are contested. The more clash the better.

The best piece of advice I can give if you are debating in front of me is to write my ballot for me. I want specific reasons as to why you win and your opponent loses. Contextualizing and framing are important. The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so.

My favorite rounds to judge are the ones where the teams are having fun. I like jokes, and I always appreciate when debaters seem to be having a good time.

/// Policy / Fast LD Paradigm ///

Note for Bentonville tournament: this portion of my paradigm is written in the context of flow/fast styles of debate. While the broad strokes of my judging ideology will hold true across formats, I will adapt to the format and stylistic choices you make in debates that don't follow the framework of fast debate. All that being said, if you are not planning on doing fast policy or fast LD debate in front of me, take this with a healthy grain of salt.

email: caleb.vering@gmail.com

The Run Down:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

Speed is okay with me. I'm out of practice so I may clear you.

4 years of debate experience in high school and graduated in 2017 (Policy mostly, and a bit of LD). I debated on both the local Kansas and national circuit. Open to all forms of argumentation (traditional policy, soft left, K, planless, performance, etc.). I have stayed active in the community, judging a couple of tournaments each year.

I was an assistant coach for Shawnee Mission West in Kansas City in 2018-19. In HS I went for traditionally policy arguments, so my knowledge of the K is somewhat limited.

Questions? Ask pre-round or send me an email. Asking questions pre-round will not influence the outcome of the debate in any capacity. I'm more than happy to contextualize myself.

///

Top Level:

Pronouns are he/him/his, they/them are also fine. Y’all means all. I have zero tolerance for disrespecting anyone due to their identity, or any disrespect for that matter.

I graduated from Kansas State University in 2022 with a degree in education. However, I currently work in the finance industry as a financial planner.

Clarity over speed. I’ll clear you once, after that it’s docked speaks. Only exception is a room with bad acoustics, which happens sometimes.

Overviews are good and you should use them.

Tech over truth, but truth value of arguments does matter. All arguments need a substantive warrant, and sufficient credibility in the card backing up that warrant.

Cross-ex is important in establishing your credibility, and it is also binding.

You should disclose previously read arguments prior to the round, ideally on opencaselist.

Wanna win? Stop reading so many cards and start explaining and contextualizing them to the debate.

Have fun. Make jokes. Enjoying what you’re doing helps your credibility, ability to win, and your speaks.

I know cursing feels edgy and cool but unless it's important to your argument try to leave it out of the debate.

Playing your music out loud preround or during prep without the permission of your opponent is incredibly rude and distasteful and will dock your speaks. (this does not apply to performative aff wherein the music is a part of the argument).

Note on Rhetoric

In most good debates I see, a lot of my decision can come down to the rhetorical and persuasive ability of a team. I will do my best to stay as close to the flow as I can in my decision, but I cannot separate myself from the influence strong rhetoric from a debater can bring to the debate. I do think rhetoric in a fast debate is different from rhetoric in a normal speech. Things like cohesiveness between you and your partner, knowing your argument well, and strong cross-ex, are all examples of things that can push me one way or another in close debates.

Theory:

Not a huge fan of theory debates and I’m more apt to vote in the direction that the community generally sees theoretical aspects of debate (condo good, disclosure good). This doesn’t mean you can’t go for theory, but it isn’t your best source of offense when debating in front of me.

T:

I like T. I went for it a lot in high school. I default to competing interps but can be convinced of reasonability. I view T as offense. T should be two competing visions of the topic, and why one vision is preferable to another. T should have offense and defense just like any other argument. T is not a time suck, and RVI’s are bad.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition. It isn’t some weird alternative world that exists in between the aff and the neg. All the perm does is demonstrate why the aff and the neg can exist in the same world, and you should contextualize it as such.

Presumption:

I am comfortable voting neg on presumption. I think that the affirmative needs to prove that there should be a substantial departure from the status quo, and that their method of solvency will work. If nothing happens when I vote aff, I vote neg. I am comfortable voting aff on presumption. The negative needs to prove a substantial net benefit to their counterplan. If a world of the aff and a world of the neg look the same, I vote aff.

K:

K’s are cool and I like hearing them. Any K is fine, and I’m more versed on “core” K’s like cap, security, etc. In terms of more nuanced kritiks, i.e. setcol, afropess, etc. I am more than happy to listen to these, but, you need to be able to explain it to me in terms I can understand. I have some fundamental knowledge of philosophy and generally can understand the argument you make. But, if it is filled with buzzwords, you need to do some work catching me up. I expect you to understand and be able to explain the direct warrants of your K if you want to win.

Planless and Performance:

I am happy to pick you up on this kind of aff. However, I am also fully willing to vote for framework/T-USfg. I have only judged a few of these debates, and I very rarely encountered these arguments when I debated. I believe that any form of performance you bring into the debate must have a purpose.

Speaks

I'll do my best to try to keep up with the standard of the tournament, whatever that may be. However, my standard points scale:

30: Absolutely flawless. If I could personally hand you the top speaker trophy I would. Not only was your technical argumentation impeccable, but your rhetorical persuasion was also incredible as well.

29.9-29.5: Top 5 speaker at least. Missing a small piece from the puzzle listed above.

29.4-29: Top 10 speaker at least. Small problems emerging in both rhetoric and tech, but still very good.

28.9-28.3: Larger cracks emerging in either rhetoric or tech, usually a small problem with one and a larger with another

28.2-27.7: This is about average. I can see bigger problems in both rhetoric and tech, but you generally held together a cohesive debate and put up a good fight. While there were problems, if I'm noticing a commitment to improvements, such as making good analysis, deploying a smart argument or strategy, or having strong points in rhetoric you will fall here.

27.6-27.2: This is where you will fall if I see you making large and critical mistakes. Reading directly from blocks and a small bit of analysis. If I'm giving you speaks in this range, I will do my best job as an educator to try to explain how you can improve. This range does not mean failure: it means room for growth.

27.1-26.5: Falling into this range generally means obvious mistakes with no attempt to fix them, or just straight up giving up. I will still do my best to try to be an educator and teach you to improve, but this is generally if I see a lack of effort, i.e. reading directly from blocks and practically no analysis.

26.4-26: Smaller instances of disrespect or distastefulness will fall here, see above for what might qualify for this. This applies to both your partner and opponent. Things like talking over your partner in a disrespectful manner, or being rude during prep.

25.9-0: This would only occur in the instance of some heinous act of disrespectfulness, verbal abuse, racism, etc.

About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I'm currently in my first year of OT school if that matters to anyone.

Please add me to the email chain: allisonwinker@gmail.com

Top level:

*Pre-KSHSAA state update:* I have not judged a lot of debates on the water topic, but I would say I am pretty familiar with the core of the topic from coaching.

I will evaluate anything you read to the very best of my ability. I try my best to leave any biases at the door and make a fair decision no matter what. However, my background and most experience is in policy-oriented arguments and therefore I will be best judging those debates.

Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me, but I won't make arguments for you based on the ev that weren't made in the round.

Please tell me how to evaluate arguments in rebuttals so that I am not left to figure it out myself. I always try to intervene as little as possible when making my decisions and only vote on arguments based on what was said in the round. I try not to read evidence when writing my RFD unless it was an extremely important card to the outcome of the round and/or I can't resolve the debate without reading it. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me that in the 2NR/2AR.

Please be kind. Debate is hard; there's no reason to make it even harder for others.

Kritiks/K affs/FW

I don't have a lot of background knowledge in critical literature and therefore I will require more explanation of these arguments than some other judges. If I can't reasonably explain an argument myself or explain to a team in an RFD, I won't vote for it. This does not mean that I need to have a super high understanding of the literature or argument, but that you spent enough time on it in the debate for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Literature I am more familiar with: security, neolib/cap, set col. Assume that I am unfamiliar with anything else. Please slow down on tags and analytics (especially important things like perms) and don't use buzzwords. Good line-by-line and impact comparison is very important to me in making my decision. Long overviews are not a good idea.

Ks on the neg: Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming. I often find myself confused as to what I am voting for at the end of the round, so a robust explanation of the alternative will help you immensely. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. 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 plan, and if not, they should be grounded in the resolution in some way. 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 need actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison vs. reading blocks without ever contextualizing it to the aff.

I am increasingly starting to think that fairness isn't a terminal impact but rather an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think a lot of neg teams don't really explain why these impacts matter, they just say 'key to fairness,' 'key to clash,' etc. but miss the explanation of the implications of those impacts.

I am not a good judge for a K v. K debate.

Counterplans

The more aff-specific, the better. 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.

Even though I think condo is generally good, I think it's definitely underutilized by aff teams, especially when neg teams read 3+ advocacies, kick planks, etc. I would say I generally lean neg-ish on most counterplan theory arguments if debated equally.

Topicality

I am not a fan of T on the water topic. I get sometimes it's the most strategic option, but just know it might be more of an uphill battle with me than other arguments would be.

Make the flow clean, explain your impacts, and be clear on what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides.

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not a big fan of reasonability and think it's usually a waste of time unless you give convincing reasons as to why I should vote on it.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!

Debated at the University of Kansas (3 years) | Assistant at Shawnee Mission South

TL;DR:

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.