BHS Crusader Classic DCI

2016 — Hutchinson, KS/US

Katy Androski Paradigm

Not Submitted

Debbie Barb Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew Bauer Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Bowers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Camp Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sue Carey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fay Carey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jason Carey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jan Clifford Paradigm

Not Submitted

Riley Crane Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anna Cyr Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tim Davies Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicolette Denney Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jim Ewert Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mary Falter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kim Field Paradigm

Not Submitted

Arianne Fortune Paradigm

👀I am a Policy Maker judge with 27 years of classroom debate experience and college debate experience in the early 1990's.  I can handle speed, but need to be able to understand the tags and sources of evidence.  I take a specific, hand-written flow.  I prefer a plan text to be read in the 1AC, case-specific link evidence to DAs, and a policy debate approach to the resolution by both teams.  I don't care for PICs, as a general rule, performance debate, or most K debate.

Kelly Goertzen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nolan Goodwin Paradigm

Debated 4 years in High School

Assistant coached at various highschools since 2013

You can read whatever you want to read, if you have any questions that are argument specific please just ask me. 

Speed is 100% okay. If I can't understand you i'll just say clear. 

I guess if you have any other questions that you want to ask just let me know. 

Amie Grafton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tracy Grafton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emily Graham Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bill Hahn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Barbara Hahn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alesha Halfhide Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew Halverson Paradigm

Name: Andrew Halverson
School: Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS), Assistant Coach
Experience: 18+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State.


I never know how to completely do these things – because I tend to think there’s no way this judging philosophy can 100% accurately describe how I evaluate a debate, but here goes.

Stylistically, I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

What kind of argument and general preferences do I have regarding academic debate? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me. Hope all of this settles a few things about argument selection with me as a critic.

A caveat to the above – I have recently developed a disdain towards Consult CPs and most “cheating” CPs. If it’s a part of your core strategy, you shouldn’t be dissuaded from running these styles of argument. However, I tend to be sympathetic towards the AFF on theory and substantive arguments vs. this style of argument. As the NEG, you had better REALLY win this argument to win my ballot.

Debate theory is something that is continually evolving. As a young debater, you learn and execute the basics. Then other theoretical concepts come into play as you grow in debate. In the end, debate theory can be either really complicated or really interesting. Lots of people like to stay away from theory goo—I used to be one of them. Over time, I changed my viewpoint on the matter. One of my dislikes as a critic is tagline debating—especially when it comes to theory. Repeating your tags over and over again aren’t going to convey your point any further unless you get deeper into the claims/warrants being argued. Anyway, thoroughly explaining your theory argument is a very good idea with me. Like other debate arguments, I want to theoretically know what your interpretation of whatever aspect of debate theory includes or exclude—what the world looks like under your viewpoint.

Comparing and contrast claims, whether with evidence or analytics, is extremely important for me. If you don’t do it, then you’ll leave me to kneejerk to my own proclivities. That means that I’ll probably end up concocting a story that makes sense to me—confusing you and probably leaving you a bit irritated. My advice is do the work for me so I don’t get into such a position. For the record, I do tend to lean liberal with both my debate and political proclivities.

Finally, I know you hear this a lot, but be nice and have fun. If you have any specific question about my philosophy (which you should because this certainly doesn’t explain everything), ask me questions either immediately before the debate or you can e-mail me at halverson.andrew [at] gmail dot com. Hope this clear a few things up. Happy Debating to all of you!!

And by the way, below is a semi-judge of how I give speaker points. I stole the bulk of this (actually all of it) from Lucia Scott, so I guess this means she’s gets a h/t in this portion of my judging philosophy. This is a guide for how I give speaks, but it is subject to contextual change with any given debate (which probably shouldn’t happen very often – if at all).

Speaker Points:

25 or below – You were so offensive I almost told you to shut up. You're lucky my RFD wasn't as long as they would give me telling you how terrible whatever you said was. This also includes instances where I think you probably aren’t ready for the level of debate that I was judging at the time.

25.5-26.5 – You didn't use all your speech time, and/or your partner gave most of your rebuttal. You probably repeated yourself a lot and your speech, most likely, was not compelling at all. You also might have just been absurdly rude.

27 – You failed to extend warrants, your speech was so disorganized it hurt, and/or your rebuttal was clearly scripted. You made some kind of damning strategic error. I had to say clear twice and you still weren't clear.

27.5 – This is where I start. Your speeches were pretty average with no glaring strategic errors. You were decently clear, but by no means should you quit speed drills.

28 – Your strategy or the way you deployed it impressed me in some way. You're pretty fast and pretty clear.

28.5 – You're fast and I understood almost everything you said. You're persuasive. Your strategy was efficient and effective.

29 – I understood everything you said. You obviously know your arguments well, maybe even cut the argument yourself. You were smart and aggressive without being rude at all. I 
had fun watching you debate.

29.5 – Your speeches were so devastating the other team had no chance. I heard every single word of every single card. You didn't rely on cheap arguments. Everything you said could've been the 2NR/2AR. This was a super easy decision.

30 – You're not getting one of these UNLESS there are some amazing circumstances that permit it OR you have given one of the top 3 debate speeches that I have ever heard. Usually, this amount of point means that I think you could win the NDT right now.

Mike Hardin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bryce Harner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Harris Paradigm

Mike Harris
Wichita East High School -Director of Debate

(formerly Kapaun Mt. Carmel)

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita Eastl in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA circuit in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years and compete as much as Kansas will allow at national circuit tournaments. I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC last year.  I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot.  DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.  

Speed - No preference. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature. 

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on perm theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory. Is there such thing as cheating?

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a philosophy degree, but it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science and IR. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

Luke Hartman Paradigm

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at K-State. I was an assistant coach at Blue Valley North from 2014 to 2018, was a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute last summer, and currently attend law school at UC Irvine.

General Comments:

  • I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
  • I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
  • I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
  • On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments.
  • The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
  • I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
  • I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; if your a-strat consists of 10+ conditional advocacies, you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. There must be a coherent link story in order for me to be willing to vote for a K. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Rounds judged (immigration topic): 14

Rounds judged (career): 199

Email address: lukehartman3[at]gmail.com

Luke Hartman Paradigm

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at K-State. I was an assistant coach at Blue Valley North from 2014 to 2018, was a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute last summer, and currently attend law school at UC Irvine.

General Comments:

  • I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
  • I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
  • I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
  • On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments.
  • The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
  • I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
  • I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).

Topicality/Theory:

The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; if your a-strat consists of 10+ conditional advocacies, you should probably go home and rethink your life.

Kritiks:

I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. There must be a coherent link story in order for me to be willing to vote for a K. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.

Rounds judged (immigration topic): 14

Rounds judged (career): 199

Email address: lukehartman3[at]gmail.com

Kaye Heitschmidt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zachary Hendrickson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Erica Kilpatrick Paradigm

Not Submitted

Glenda Kilpatrick Paradigm

Not Submitted

Thaddeus Kirkendoll Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Knapp Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bonnie Likes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vicki Lloyd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emmie Lohr Paradigm

Not Submitted

Linda Lusk Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jack Mace Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ralph Marchione Paradigm

Not Submitted

Will Mercer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lynn Miller Paradigm

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

Rosemary Miller Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carter Mullen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Margaret O'Neal Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Parks Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lori Pauls Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alonso Pena Paradigm

I debated for four years at Kansas State University, and three years in highschool at Garden City High School. I try to be as neutral as possible, and I will make my decision predicated on the things that happen in the round. That being said I embody a lived experience, and that experience follows me in every decision in life, so I will not pretend that I can seperate myself from that. I will, however, try to evaluate the debate as fairly as I can.

I think that debate is a place where students have the capacity to use argumentative creativity, and so I am willing to listen to a wide variety of argumentative styles. I will repeat what has been said many many times before - do not try to change the way you debate to move closer to what you think I would like. Yes, I have a particular debate style, but that does not mean that I will privilege this style of debate. Do you to the best degree possible, and I will be happy.

Below are some of the particularities of my judging philosophy

Disads

Disadvantages are very important and underutilized in debate. I love a good specific disad debate. Generic disads are fine, but I expect specific links. You should explain why the disadvantage turns and outweighs the case, and you should compare impacts somehow. This means explain to me why your scenario that leads to world war 3 is more important than their scenario that leads to extinction via global warming. I need to know how I should evaluate these arguments. I'm also not going to lie - I am not the most caught up on domestic politics so you should be explaining the specifics of your politics disad if that is important. Do not expect me to do that work for you, because that would assume that I read your scenarios. Chances are, I have not.

Counterplans

I love seeing specific advantage counterplans deployed strategically. I am fine with agent counterplans, but I would prefer them to be competitive. If your mechanism is techy and deep in the literature then I expect some explaination. I am not a fan of process counterplans, but I will vote for them if they are deployed well. Word PICS are cool, but you should have some basic theoretical defense to why PICing out of discourse is legit.

Critiques

I enjoy them. Please stay grounded and do not travel too far into the level of theory without explaination of praxis. What I mean by this is you might have an awesome idea, but I need you to explain it to me in a way that I can apply to my life. Do not assume I have read your literature base. Dense theoretical concepts should be unpackaged. I am of the belief that the negative does not NEED an alternative do win a critique debate. That being said, I need reasons why the links turn or outweigh the aff, because otherwise I will probably vote affirmative since presumption flips affirmative in a counter-method debate. It is also easier to win a debate where the alternative solves the afffirmative, but I will consider a world where the links function as independant disadvantages. I am also a fan of creative uses of theory. Debate is changing, and if you can explain to me a way that I should consider evaluating the debate then I will take it to heart. This includes interpretations of permutation theory, competition theory, or presumption theory in the context of method or performance debates etc.

Topicality/Framework

I need a concrete interpretation, violation, and impact in the 2NR if you want to win this position. I am totally fine voting for topicality, but I expect the 2NR to explain a consistent story. I find permutation on framework interesting, and if you can explain it well then I will feel comfortable voting on this argument. I know there are some judges in Kansas who are saying that they will not vote for untopical affirmatives. I find this display a gross interjection that ruins the creative freedom debate is supposed to provide to students. I will respond to this by refusing to take the opposite position. I will try my hardest to evaluate framework fairly, and students should not be afraid to read this argument in front of me. That being said, I do still have expectations for you to win this argument, and I have no ideological issues voting for untopical aff if they win the debate with things like contextualized impact turns or a counter-pedagogy.

Speed

I can most likely keep up with your speed. I'll shout clear three times, and afterward I will flow what I can and feel no kind of guilt about missing arguments that I cannot catch.

My Flow

I would like basic roadmaps. Please tell me where you are going. If this is not how you debate, that's cool with me. I also flow mostly straight down, so telling me where you are going to put the perm has no utility in front of me. I will flow everything you say straight down, and if you tell me to move on to a different piece of paper I will do such.

Cross-X

I'm cool with open cross-x, but I would prefer if the non-speaking partner does not answer all of the questions. It will hurt speaker points. Open cross-x is great, but it often turns into the second speaker continually silencing and belittling the first speaker. Let's please make sure this doesn't happen.

Juanita Powers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chere Reed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jerry Regehr Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rebecca Rodriguez-Carey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Seth Ross Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daniel Saunders Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jerry Schmidt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aaron Schopper Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mateen Shah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Talisha Sherry Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jessica Skoglund Paradigm

Not Submitted

Russ Stewart Paradigm

Not Submitted

Denise Thode Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeff Thomson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Staci White Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicolee Wyman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lori Zimpfer Paradigm

Not Submitted