I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

Hello! My name is Chase. I am debate coach in southeast Kansas.

I use a tabula rasa ("clean slate") paradigm, so it is important to teach me your framework. Tell me how to evaluate the round. I do believe stock issues and comparative advantages are equally important. Counterplans and kritiks are acceptable if they are well-structured and thoroughly-explained. As for theoretical arguments, such as topicality or specification arguments, I think they're important, too, and I will resolve them before weighing other arguments in the round.

I am most attentive during roadmaps, signposts, taglines, emphasized words, summaries of evidence, and points of analysis. I sometimes lose interest while you are reading cards. I prefer relevant arguments that you can articulate and explain. Your arguments should have strong links, internal links, and probable impacts. I don't think debate is a "game." I think it is a search for truth.

As for speed, I prefer a moderate pace. Communicate.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

I will flow, but I am a policymaker judge. Make sure your plan has real-world potential. Assume I am a lay judge.

Topicality is an acceptable argument

I do not like speed - keep a conversational pace

CP's are acceptable and K's are alright in very rare circumstances.

Good Luck

Hello!

I debated and competed in forensics all four years of high school. After graduating I have continued to help out with my high school team as my Dad is the coach. Thanks to him, I've been around NSDA (Or NFL as it used to be) since I was little. 

I am a tabula rasa judge. I will judge off of only what is mentioned in the round. If your arguments are structured/run incorrectly etc. I will only consider those things in my decision if your opponent mentions them (I may leave you a lengthy ballot comment however, for education and improvements sake).

I am completely fine with counterplans, theory arguments, and Ks. Topicality usually needs to be substantial for me to vote on it, however if you feel confident you can convince me it is substantial, go for it.

I do not need to be included in any evidence sharing or email chains. I believe that if you convince me of something, then it is true. This means when directly competing evidence is presented, I will often favor the evidence that is presented more persuasively.

Really what this whole paradigm boils down to, is I believe in debate your goal should be to communicate with and persuade the judge to your side. You do that, and you'll have my ballot.