Tabroom.com

KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 2018

2018 — Emporia, KS/US

KSHSAA 2-Person State Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Steve Wood 10X Blue Valley None

Art Delgado 11X BV Northwest

David Kingston 11Y BV Northwest

Last changed on Thu February 18, 2021 at 7:03 AM CDT

Update: This is still accurate. I am actively coaching / cutting cards on the HS topic.

Put me on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com --- Makes life easier.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I debated 4 years in High School in Albuquerque, NM. I graduated in 1989.
I also debated for 4 years in College at Arizona State and transferred to UMKC. I won CEDA Nationals and graduated in 1994.
After that, I was a grad assistant at the University of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing mine from Genco to Kingston.
and then was a grad assistant at KU for a couple of years.
and then was the Assistant Director at UMKC until 2000.
From 1994 until 2000 I taught at a bunch of camps.
I've helped out several college teams here and there in the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and coaching Blue Valley Northwest on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

TL/DR: I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've judged a ton of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

K: Everyone wants to know if I'm ok with "the K" or "the criticism" or a "performance". Sure. That sounds good to me. I understand those types of arguments. I've become more up to date with some high theory and race/structural Ks. You do you. I don't hold them against you.

CP: You don't have to answer the aff if the Counterplan solves all of the aff and you should point out what disads/turns are net benefits to the counterplans. I do not default to judge kick. I default to you're stuck with what you go for unless you make some argument about it. If you make an argument about the counterplan being condo, then you have to kick it unless you make judge kick args.

DA: They're good. Uniqueness, link or impact defense, and foundational warrant comparison are all good ways to help resolve things. Please don't read generic impact stuff that doesn't take the context of the round into account. It helps my decision and comments if you differentiate your warrants or find ways to compare your link to the turn or vise versa. Do I believe in zero risk? Kinda. Dropped args are probably zero risk. But I default to the arguments made about risk. Generally though, I default to some risk on a contested debate unless the resolution of the arguments is made very clear (Uniqueness goes the wrong direction, dropped args with some analysis, deeper warrants etc.)

T: If you have a good interp you can defend and can do standard debating well, I'm willing to hear the debate.

K Affs: I have been more in touch with this style of debate in recent years. I'm pretty neutral in FW debates. If you're aff vs FW, isolate a couple pieces of offense and you should be all right.

Theory: I don't care about how many or what kind of condo if you can defend it.

Round Comments:

I try to stay neutral in my judging and vote on things said in the round, not things that I make up about things you say. I'll make things up if that's the only way to resolve stuff, but I never feel good about it. Don't make me feel bad, plz.

I don't care how fast you go as long as you don't have mush mouth and I can understand it.

I try not to be a jerk about prep time, please don't be a jerk about it either. That being said, we do have to have a debate and it does have to finish on time, so don't steal prep.

Also, don't clip cards. I read along in the speech doc.

Don't flash docs that contain a ton of cards you're never going to read, and don't mess with the speech docs (remove navigation, purposefully try to avoid sharing, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vice versa.

None of that doesn't mean that you can expect me to ignore arguments that aren't in a speech doc. If it was said, it's an argument. You should FLOW.

I don't like posturing between speeches and during CX in debates. If you have comments to make about the way the other team is debating or the arguments they choose, then you should make them as an argument in a speech.

Speaker Points: I'm trying to achieve more clarity about how I assign speaker points. This should give you a good idea about what I'm thinking when I assign them. This is a bit of an upward departure from points I have given in the past. Basically, I'm looking at points as a consideration of whether or not I think the debating you did was of elim rounds quality or that your performance was worthy of putting you on track to win a speaker award. I have my standards, but my points will probably end up being .2 or so higher than I have given in the past.

Bonus speaker points if you find a way to win that doesn't assume you win all of your arguments.

Have fun and Good Luck!

Kristi Kingston 11Z BV Northwest

Chris Biswell 12X SM West

Rose Lawler 12Y SM West

Amanda Courtney/Tim Leffert 12Z SM West

Lisa Deal 13X Dodge City None

Mari Dietz 13Y Dodge City

Steven Ray 13Z Dodge City

Russell French 14Y BV West

Arianne Fortune 14Z BV West

Michael Shelton 15X Lawrence Free State

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:36 AM CDT

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc. Internal links matter.
CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate. The Aff. can object, of course.
Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Johannah Smith 15Y Lawrence Free State None

Tim Quinn 16X Olathe North

Last changed on Tue November 7, 2017 at 8:45 AM CDT

Debate Judging Philosophy and Paradigm

Tim Quinn

Debated High School: Wichita Southeast (City League) 1980-84

I have been judging in the Kansas and Missouri areas for a lot of seasons. I am a debate fan and passionate about the activity. Here are some random thoughts that I found and it is a compilation of how I judge. I wrote some of it and I am pretty sure I pilfered from others:

The round is about the participants, this should be a fun and educational activity. Fun includes being: courteous, respectful, topical, clever, clear, knowledgeable, strategic, timely and persuasive.
This judge’s paradigm is about me. Use it to your advantage or discard it. It is just a tool for you to analyze. I also feel this is an exercise for my ego and show how knowledgeable and uncool I actually am.
We have debated this topic for a couple of months and it is now national qualifier time. I will expect arguments to be better and well defined this time of year.
I want to be persuaded. I encourage you to sell me on your arguments. I can flow; I can pull arguments across the flow but tell me why it benefits your side of the debate and if it contributes to your advantage, impacts, turn or solvency.
Good on case debates seem to produce the best debates.
Aggressive strategies produce the most interesting debates. I have voted and advocated revolution, nuclear war, abuse, theory, topicality, politics and political capital. I feel that I will listen and reward teams that argue and persuade me the most.
I like topicality. Teams that run it usually do well with me especially if it is against a non-topical affirmative. I default to competitive interpretation. 2NR focus on topicality is critical and usually determines how big I evaluate it.
Speed is good and strategic. I think there is good speed and bad speed. Persuasive arguments combined with good word economy almost always outweigh bad speed.
I won’t ask for evidence after the round. Debate is a communication activity and the evidence should be communicated in round. If I don’t understand the evidence in the way it is presented in round, I most likely will ignore it.
Have fun and ask questions of me at any time.

Thanks. TQ

Rachel Hanlin 16Y Olathe North

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2018 at 5:06 AM CDT

I used to debate for ONHS 2013-2016. Now, I am a Classics Major at Missouri State University.

Email me at Rachel819@live.missouristate.edu if you have questions post-round.

Dropping arguments instead of kicking out of them is sloppy debate. Not extending is the same as dropping.

Paperless teams are required to have a viewing computer should a paper team request it. Don't be classist...

The first sentence of your 2ar/2nr should be the same sentence I use when I tell the other team why they lost.

Case – Please more case debates? I love case debates. Take the time to read aff evidence because there are probably case turns right there if you don't have evidence on their case specifically.

Delivery- Speed is fine, so long as it is clear. One warning, then I stop flowing.

Ks – First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. Second, no one cares how much Lacan you’ve read unless you make it matter: A distinction without a difference is not a distinction. If there is a difference in the literature base between how your two authors/theories interact with each other, and if that difference doesn’t produce different normative judgments on certain practices or differing political endgoals/demands then for most debates it will not help you. One of the wonders of policy debate is that it demands theories apply themselves to particular case-studies: make sure your theory has a different conclusion on that case-study than the aff’s.

Cps – I loved CPs, I wish the rest of Kansas liked CPs. But, if you think it’s cheating it probably is. State CPs and I-Fiat are probably cheating. Must be functionally/textually competitive. Consult cps are probably cheating too. If Your CP Does the Aff, it is probably cheating. Process counterplans are somewhat disingenuous. If process focus is so good, why are we forcing the aff to defend a version of the 1ac completely devoid of process?

Das – Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably. You can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics disads. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. But, if you do go for politics, be smart about it. Make sure your story is consistent.

T – T is mostly awash if you extend reasonability. You’re likely topical so this argument doesn’t matter much to me. If you’re blatantly untopical, you probably know it too so just convince me why your plan supersedes topicality. If you’re untopical just because you’re an Edgelord™ you will have a harder time convincing me of your position.

Framework – Framework is the way I evaluate the round, not the deciding factor.

Hannah Meyers 16Z Olathe North

Julia Henry/Tim Ellis 17X Washburn Rural

Last changed on Mon September 20, 2021 at 5:33 AM CDT

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

T-USFG

Impact weighing and comparisons are very important to how I decide these debates. If I think that both teams have some point of offense they are both winning, it makes it difficult to decide these debates if there isn’t any discussion of the other teams impact. If you solve their impacts, your impact turns them, or anything else related to that then please point that out. However, less is more when it comes to the number of impacts you are extending throughout the debate. One really well developed impact or impact turn is much better than three or four less well developed ones.

I also think it’s important for affirmative teams to have a clear tie or relationship with the topic. I find it harder to be persuaded to vote for affirmatives that I don’t think have a lot to do with the topic in some way. How you do this is up to you, but just make it clear to me.

In the past, I have voted on various impacts from and on framework. Personally I have been more of a fan of clash impacts than fairness, but I don’t think that should discourage you from going for whatever impact you feel most comfortable with.

Topicality

More explanation needed if you go for reasonability. Most of the debates I have judged where the aff goes for reasonability are very surface level extensions from the one sentence you said in the 2AC.

DA’s

Not much to say here. Read them and go for them when you can/want to. Where I start evaluating the debate for disad vs. case debates is very dependent on the disad and what arguments you are making a bigger deal about. If there is a lot of push back from the aff on the link and this is where you spend most of your time in the 2nr/2ar, I will probably start by evaluating the debate there. If impacts/their comparisons seem to be where a lot of time is spent, then I will start thinking about that first.

K’s

Debating case is very important. Having arguments that you think not only implicate the aff but also help your links are nice. Sometimes I feel like whenever a team goes for case arguments it feels detached from the rest of the debate on the K. IF you can make them connected somehow that would be good.

Have a reason for going for whatever framework arguments you are going for in the last speeches. This goes for the aff and the neg. So many times I have felt like people are just extending framework because their coaches told them to and not because they think there is reason why it is important for how the judge evaluates arguments at the end of the debate.

If you have a bunch of what seems to be conflicting theories in the cards you are going for and extending on the neg, please make it clear why what you are doing is okay. Alternatively, affirmative teams should be pointing out when they think the things the negative has said don’t make much sense.

CP’s

Again, read them and go for them when you can/want to. I don’t think I have very many predispositions about certain counterplans at this point in time. I think this just means that if you think a certain counterplan automatically beats an affirmative, I would prefer it if you showed it in the arguments you are making and the evidence you are reading. A counterplan that seems to be very solvent when explained, but lacking in evidence or that just generally has under highlighted cards will be harder to win in front of me.

A really good solvency deficit that aligns with whatever advantage you are going for in the 2ar is more important to me than you going for a bunch of different arguments that are less well developed.

Zoe Crater 17Y Washburn Rural

Rob Owens 17Z Washburn Rural

Angel Zelazny 18Y Manhattan None

Catherine Rankin 19X Junction City None

Wendy Dies 19Y Junction City

Seth Peck 1X SM South None

Cory Newman 1Y SM South

Last changed on Mon October 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM EDT

I've been involved in debate as either a competitor, a judge, or a coach for over a decade in both policy as well as Lincoln Douglas debate.

I default to a policy maker paradigm, and if all else is truly equal in the round then that's the side that I'll err on, but I have voted on kritikal arguments before and have no problem doing so again if those are the relevant issues in the round. However when I am making decision on kritikal arguments both framework as well as the role of the ballot are very important to me.

On topicality I err on the side of reasonability, but I've voted neg on topicality many times and you should certainly run topicality if you believe the affirmative isn't topical and you feel like that's the strategy you want to go for. If you do go for topicality, unless your opponent has straight up conceded most of the flow, the majority of the 2NR should probably be on topicality. With voters I have a preference for education.

Theory debates are great. Just be sure to legitimize the theory argument with a reasonable voter. Otherwise I have no reason to care about the theory no matter how well you argue it.

Counter-plans are great. Many of the teams I've worked with (including my own partnership) spend the majority of their rounds going for nothing except a single counter-plan and its net benefit, so I'm very familiar with that debate.

I can probably handle whatever speed you throw at me as long as you remain clear. I give two warnings for clarity before I stop telling you to be clear and just flow whatever I can understand.

If your partner prompts you at all during your speech, know that I will not flow a single word of what they say. If you want me to flow it and acknowledge that it was said in the round, then the person giving the speech has to physically say the words.

Unless a speech, CX, or prep timer is running, there should not be preparation going on for either team. During flashing/emailing time, neither team should be prepping. That includes writing on your flows, reading through evidence, and talking to your partner about any arguments in the round.

The bottom line for me in debate is - be reasonable. Conditional arguments are fine, just don't run a large number of them because that becomes unreasonable. Open cross-ex is fine, but if one partner is doing the vast majority of their team's participation in CX then that is no longer reasonable. Flashing evidence to your opponent off-time is fine, but it should be done in a reasonable time (and obviously flashing to your partner is prep time). When in doubt - just ask me.

Joshua Knowles 1Z SM South None

Meagan Deutch 20X SM North

Josh Dale 20Y SM North

Margaret Bernard 20Z SM North

Kevin Barnes/Ben Volen 21X SM Northwest None

Phil Volen/Ken King 21Y SM Northwest

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I've evolved as a judge which has unfortunately been interpreted as I'm inconsistent or unpredictable. As an assistant coach I understand that creates frustration, which I want to avoid, so if there is anything below that is not 100% clear, please ask me prior to the round. I would much rather have a brief discussion and give you some sense of understanding my thought process than you walk away from the round thinking you don't know what you could have done to win my ballot. I assure you, there have been people who have asked and learned how I evaluate, and those individuals found me to be consistent even if it wasn't always in their favor (though it often was).

Let's start with the foundation. Once upon a time I would give myself the label of "games player" because I appreciated good strategy. I still evaluate if I think a team is being strategic or clever, but I am strongly TRUTH OVER TECH. If you tell me that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and your opposition does not respond, that DOES NOT mean I accept something that is not true. I think it is especially critical in an environment of "fake news" or "relative facts" that we champion the truth above spin. So you will find that if your argument is only theoretically plausible, it is going to be much less persuasive than if you stick to simple truths.

This leads me to two conclusions you should be able to draw about how I evaluate a round. 1st, magnitude does NOT overwhelm probability. In fact magnitude rarely plays any part in my decision. I have listened to the same authors for 25+ years predict the next war will be over water or food or that we're all going to starve or that terrorists are moments away from having nuclear weapons. Empirically all of these authors are wrong. The have no credibility with me. Which means I give zero weight to an impact that I have zero probability of believing it will happen. You hear judges say all the time that they are tired of nuke war impacts. You want to know why? Because I have lived my entire life with the doomsday clock at least 7 minutes to midnight. The "experts" have cried wolf for far to long to be believed. The only chance you have to win on magnitude is if you extend very detailed warrants about why this time is different and the facts your author has looked at to draw the conclusions. If you don't know what facts the author looked at, don't bother.

2nd, links and link stories matter much more than uniqueness. I believe students like to debate uniqueness because it is easy. It is eacy to try to find evidence about the current state of the world. What is hard is predicting the consequences of taking any action. This is why solvency and link turns on case are extremely effective as well as indicting internal links on a D.A. to make it go away. I will assign 0% solvency or 0% risk of a link so defense can make an entire flow seemingly go away. This is especially apparent on politics scenarios! Pundits who try to predict elections or votes on legislation are less accurate than the weatherman! I will not assume that just because the Affirmative plan is topical that it will lead to any consequence other than the ones that are by fiat. I have listened to debaters who were incredibly informed on specific congressional leaders and how certain pieces of legislation are being used as a political football, and those debaters were persuasive. If you just aren't that debater, there is no shame in that, but you will find your politics scenario just isn't persuasive.

Let's shift gears and talk a little about topicality. Here is my single belief: the affirmative team must affirm the resolution. When I write affirmative on the ballot that means the affirmative team has successfully convinced me the resolution is true. The affirmative plan is an example of the possible reasons the resolution is true. The affirmative doesn't have to prove all instances of the resolution are true, but at least the affirmative plan should be adopted and if the affirmative plan is an example what could be under the resolution, then the resolution is true. This view of the resolution is nearly non-negotiable (we'll talk about K's in a minute). This means the affirmative plan is a proof of the resolution or it isn't. Period. I don't evaluate if it is fair because that is subjective. There will be an interpretation that I either believe or don't believe, it is always all or nothing. When it comes to competing interpretations, I will walk into the round with an interpretation in my mind (no one is a blank slate) and that will be my default. I can be persuaded that there is a different interpretation, but the reason must be more compelling than an appeal to emotion and warranted in facts. I will admit, topicality is the one place that I will suspend the truth until it is argued. There are countless rounds in which the foundation of an affirmative plan hasn't been established, it isn't prima facia topical, and I don't get to pull the trigger because the negative is silent. That frustrates me because I don't get to vote on what I see is the truth. That doesn't mean run topicality no matter what, because you hurt your credibility by running the wrong violation or running it to run it. It's not a strategic time suck. Both the affirmative and negative need to ask themselves if they would vote on if the affirmative is topical and make their best case. It probably goes without saying, but I believe the plan text must be topical, not the solvency of the plan. I believe the plan text must be sufficient to justify the resolution. If you need to do something in addition to the resolution to show the plan should be adopted, then you have shown the resolution should not be affirmed because it is insufficient.

I said I'd talk about K's, so lets get it over with. For years I said I didn't like them or worst wouldn't even listen to them. I'm much more open minded now, but here is the truth. You have 26 minutes to convince me of some philosophical position that I might not agree with. That is ridiculously hard when I've studied most of these positions for entire semesters, or life long, and have true biases. Flat out, I believe in Capitalism. I've studied Marx, and I happily participate in a Capitalist society. I have voted on Cap Bad because the round called for it, but my default is Cap Good. I could go through several popular K's, but you get the point. You will either 1. have to get lucky and preach to the choir on something I already believe or 2. knock me off my preconceived notion about the world. That's either luck or quite difficult. And I will caveat all of this with one big factor. If you are making a social criticism, you better walk the walk. You cannot be a hypocrite. If you performatively contradict your position, your link to the K will be far stronger than anything you say for your opponents because you should have known better. For example if you say animal suffering is always immoral and you are wearing leather shoes, you better be able to prove the cow died of natural causes! I LOVE to vote against the team who presents a K and link back into it. Speaking of K links, I will not assume the K links, you need to have a story (see my take on D.A.'s). And your alt must actually solve (see my take on solvency).

From K's to their cousins the CP. I am old and still believe that a counterplan must be an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. We can't do the CP and the Aff (mutually exclusive) and the CP is better than the Aff (competitive) so we should do the CP instead of the affirmative. Futhermore the CP must be non-topical or else the affirmative gets to simply say the counterplan is one more example of why the resolution is true. See, the affirmative could present 2 or more plans to prove the resolution is a good idea. They don't do that because it puts them more at risk because they must advocate for everything they present, but they can just freely have the CP if the CP is topical. This is a strong belief of mine so theory to tell me otherwise is not persuasive. This isn't to say PIC's are off limits, it just means the PIC must be extra topical (see my take on why extra T doesn't justify the resolution). There are plenty of strategic CP's that work with this paradigm, but ultimately it needs to be an opportunity cost to the affirmative. CP's can be permed, thus they are not mutually exclusive and therefor not an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. A CP can link to a D.A. so it isn't competitive. I appreciate counterplans and their usage, but they need to be that opportunity cost to the resolution.

The rest of theory type stuff is a coin flip and situational. I've voted on condo good and bad. I'm willing to pull the trigger on something, but you need to explain it and warrant it. I don't fill in the gaps for blips.

To be clear, I don't fill in anything. Just saying a couple of key words like "perm do both" or "pull the impacts" may not be sufficient. If I understood what you said earlier, perhaps, but I'm not going to insert what I think you mean by shouting out debate jargon. This leads to the overused question of speed. This is a verbal activity. I almost never read cards because I want to evaluate what I heard. If I hear the warrants in a card, great. If I'm not able to process the warrants then all you've done is make a claim in your tag. Speed is very rarely the issue, it is a matter of clarity. And it is unusually pretty obvious if I've given up on flowing. The only time I usually ask for evidence is when I personally am questioning myself on what I heard and I think it is my fault I'm unsure. As far as I'm concerned the authors are there to lend credibility, you are making the arguments, so I'm not going to evaluate what your author said, I'm going to evaluate what you said. If you author lacks credibility, you might as well just say things in your own words. Which honestly is often not a bad thing. I think debaters are way too dependent on quoting an author and treating it like a fact. If your author makes a claim but doesn't warrant it, just because they are an author doesn't make it true. This is more common in K debates where quoting a philosopher is treated like an absolute truth, but it can happen anywhere in the debate. Again, I want the truth over tech, so facts with logical analysis will outweigh a card in most situations.

Finally, I am human. I am biased. I have emotions. Why is this relevant? Because my bias and my emotions can make somethings seem more persuasive than others. Your credibility matters. If you destroy your credibility, you might say you won on the flow, but I'm not believing you so what is on the flow carries no weight. Treating your opponents poorly lowers your credibility. "Put away your impact defense, my card beats them all" is insulting because it shows that you care more about what your opponents think about how cool you are than persuading me that your argument is actually sound. Tag team cross ex tells me through your actions that "I don't trust my partner. My partner is stupid so I'll speak out of turn. What I have to say is more important." That is pretty damning to your partners credibility and frankly makes you a jerk. Prompting arguments says the same thing. Prompting "slower" shows you are trying to assist with something they might not realize in the moment but giving an argument and having them parrot it word for word so it "counts" is about the worst ways to attempt to persuade me. If you cause logistical issues such as being late to the round because what your assistant coach had to say was more important than my time, or stealing prep time while you fiddle with your computer, or take significant time to pass evidence, all of these things I notice and leaves an impression on me. You might be shocked by this, but humans like to reward people they like and punish those they don't like. That isn't to say I'll immediately vote against you because you rearranged the entire room so you could plug in your laptop, but it makes your job harder if I'm rooting against you. Just don't give me a reason to want to vote against you and we'll be fine.

Oh, and I don't shake hands. I'm not as adverse as Howie Mandel, but I prefer not to physically touch strangers. I just don't see any reason to do it. I know you respect me as a human and I respect you as a human without our hands touching.

Oscar Romero 22X Garden City None

Sean Atchley/Ivan Moya 22Y Garden City

Jamie Welch 23X Campus

Dave Miller 2Y Olathe South None

Jaycee Zeck 3X Gardner Edgerton None

Deb Osborn 3Y Gardner Edgerton

Mike Zegers 3Z Gardner Edgerton None

Parker Mitchell 4X SM East

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 9:15 AM CDT

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.

Jennifer Burrus 4Y SM East None

Adam Moon 4Z SM East

Kristen White 5X Olathe NW

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 11:27 AM CDT

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

Jessica Skoglund 5Y Olathe NW

Last changed on Fri January 15, 2021 at 1:36 PM CDT

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

Kathy Ingles 5Z Olathe NW None

Melissa Swauncy 6X Wichita East

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:59 AM EDT

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Stella Yang 6Y Wichita East

Andrew Halverson 6Z Wichita East

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 7:13 PM CDT

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? 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.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**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.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

Gavin Fritton 7X Lawrence HS

Last changed on Sun April 7, 2024 at 4:53 PM CDT

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.

Alex Glanzman 7Y Lawrence HS

Last changed on Wed April 13, 2022 at 12:54 PM CDT

My email is glanzman94@gmail.com ------please include me in the email chain if present. I do prefer speechdrop though.

Experience/Accolades:

NFA-LD National Champion (2016)

NPDA/NPTE Top 8 (2016)

CEDA Double Octo-Finalist (2014)

Coach in High School Policy for 6 years

Coach for NFA-LD for 2 years

***Updated for NFA 2022***

We are back in person!! I have attended two tournaments nationally to get back into the swing of in-person debate and I believe the differences I have seen warrants me making changes to my paradigm. For some students this may be your first in person experience debating (whether that be high school or college) and I need to make it clear that certain debate practices and models do not translate well to in-person debate and causes me headaches when evaluating a winner. So I will attempt to pinpoint things I find make it difficult to judge while also providing a view for how I engage with debates.

1. Run strategies you understand and are comfortable with---do not let your peers or coaches tell you otherwise. I’ve found it incredibly disheartening that every year I go into judging and students run K’s or soft left stuff in front of me because they believe that’s all I can evaluate. It’s not true. Yes I can provide better feedback with K’s compared to a politics DA but I also evaluate every debate through offense/defense and how to frame it. So please stop running things you can’t explain beyond the surface level just because you think I like it.

2. Debate is about clash, and clash is much more than just saying “they said x argument”. Seriously I’ve judged too many debates this year where teams are just missing the point of clash and it’s annoying. Remember, comparison is necessary. Comparison happens when you provide actual warrants for your argument and then contextualize it to the debate (which means your opponent’s arguments). This means tagline extensions are not enough. This means being more predictive rather than descriptive in context to arguments clashing. Things like how your alternative solves the impacts of the aff. Or how regional conflict supercharges famine. Or how winning the epistemology framing means that you internal link turn their warming scenario or whatever. Point is---compare and contrast! Don’t just do normal impact calc that’s self-referential. Ask yourself constantly “how does this happen”/”why does this matter” and make sure you answer it.

3. Overprepping is a real thing, and reading blocks as fast as you can isn’t debate. Like for real if you go into debates just reading pre-written analytics and cards only there is no reason for *you* to be present in the debate. If at the end of your speech you ask yourself “if somebody else read my document, would the debate change in any meaningful way?” and you conclude no; you have done yourself a disservice. I get it---prep is great. But overprepping or losing yourself in fast responses creates worse debate across the board. Mainly because clash isn’t very organic. Or in most cases you ignore important arguments on the flow because it didn’t make it into your blocks. Just please…generate analytics specific to this debate. Allocate time to prove you have generated thought into how you want to approach this debate.

4. Just because you read a piece of evidence does not mean I will extrapolate its warrants and apply it to the debate unless absolutely necessary. Debate is a competition between you and your opponents. I try not to interject as much as I possibly can and leave it up to what said in a debate to filter a decision. Even if your evidence has a round winning warrant---if you don’t explain and extend it, I won’t consider it. In really close rounds that reference pieces of evidence, this changes because I naturally have to look into it. But it’s not good enough to say “extend my Zizek evidence. Cold conceded” and move on then blow me up during the RFD saying “but Zizek said this line”. That’s cool, but you didn’t after the 1AC/1NC or whatever. This is why I prefer debaters who read *less* evidence after the 1AC/1NC and focus on just explaining and contextualizing what was in their original shells. Your shells should already contain 95 percent of what you need to win. Pre-emptions and all.

5. Stop assuming the way you view debate is the way I view debate. That’s the purpose of a paradigm right? You see what I’m weak at and how I evaluate arguments. I’ve noticed this year especially teams take certain endpoints for granted. Like why competitive equity/education matters. Or why stock issues are a voter. Or why economic collapse is bad. These re-address the point I made about by asking yourself “how did this happen/why does it matter?” I am flexible at how I should vote---y’all tell me how I should evaluate the round. But you gotta give me tangible reasons why your model is good and why not following it is bad. Don’t just assume.

6. I tend not to look at speakers when they are presenting, so if I do it probably means I am looking for you to explain further/contextualize. Pay attention to my body language. Especially coming off of two years judging online, I haven’t adapted too well to making my body language neutral. Either way, never was that kind of judge. I have certain ticks. Doesn’t mean that I hate what you’re saying necessarily---probably just means I’m looking for more or think you need to move on.

7. I err tech over truth, but capital T truth will be persuasive no matter what. That’s kind of the purpose of debate, yeah? Multiple sides to multiple arguments? Kinda hard to find objectivity behind all that subjectivity so it always benefits you to focus more on the internals of it. I will say though that the way that I flow and evaluate does tend to allow for more “embedded clash” than others. And what I mean by that is that certain debaters just have that gift for knowing what matters in a debate and what doesn’t. If the endpoint of an argument you make inherently clashes and out-warrants the endpoint of your opponent’s argument; it’s not necessary in certain cases to pinpoint it on the flow and flag it. Best piece of advice I’ve ever received---you’re never winning every argument. So focus on what would win you the ballot. Not just prove you’re better at arguing.

8. Presumption can be a round winner in front of me if packaged correctly. If you are winning credible defense and they just aren’t really touching on it by saying “that’s defense so who cares?” and they don’t actively explain their scenarios then yes presumption is p cool. I do expect affs and negs to adequately extend their advantages/shells even if they weren’t addressed. So just keep that in mind.

9. I am not very strong at counterplan debates, so be weary. Doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate the usual ones like agent CPs, etc. But process CPs tend to go over my head. Either way, 95 percent of the time CPs only matter because of the net benefit that is rarely internal but rather a DA that can stand on its own. You should naturally be winning the DA for the CP to matter. But that statement probably proves my conception of CP debate is bad. I love PICs though!

10. I love cheese. So anybody that brings me cheese, or cheese flavored snacks automatically gets a 29 worst case from me. Better snacks increase it. Or a drink to pair it with increase it.

So now to answer questions people like to ask:

1. Can I run a K aff? Yes. I would say that 3 out of my 4 years were me running K affs exclusively minus maybe 4 parli rounds and having to run a policy in front of NFA judges who I know can’t evaluate it well. Run it well and try to contextualize it to the neg as much as possible. Don’t get lost in blocks or generalities.

2. Do I have to have a plan? Nah. I’m not KU and saying “no plan no wins no speaks”. You don’t have to do anything in front of me to curry favor other than debate in a way strongest to you.

3. What about performance? Go for it. I did performance for 2 years of my career and had a lot of success with it. I naturally view every speech act as a performance so it’s not a thing for me to be weary about re-evaluating spaces/poetry/music/silence/narrative/whatever right? The debate is always yours in front of me. I’m just here to determine the ballot.

4. Will you vote on framework? Yes. So far voted more for it than against it. I think framework debaters tend to focus too much on prepped blocks though. Be more organic and really engage with the specifics of the 1AC/1NC instead of just generalizing it to “they say anti-blackness” or whatever. You should also be prioritizing the internal links of your framework shells. Things like clash, switch side, preparation, resolutional stasis, etc. only matter if you contextualize it to the specifics of the 1AC. Like it’s not just good enough to tell me why balanced clash is good. You have to not only justify why your model of debate is good, but preferable to the affs model.

5. Will you vote on T? Yes. It’s how I won NFA. And I actually think T can be read against policy affs. Even if there is some ground/offense baked into their relation to the topic (sorry Lincoln Garrett, your take was kinda silly lol). Point is, topic is important yeah? You can debate it isn’t important. And you can win that debate. But by default, I tend to believe the topic matters in some fashion. T debaters have a horrible tendency to focus on top level though compared to internals. This mirrors the framework arguments I painted above since T and Framework are essentially the same thing (yes they are, interpretations are models for how the community should engage a word/phrase. Framework just makes more meta arguments about the generalities of debate). Talk about specifics, not generalities. Be predictive about what they justify and how that worsens debate. And why that matters. Just please explain stuff…even if you win the interp and violation debate doesn’t mean it’s an automatic vote.

6. What about the K? Yeah run it if you actually know how to explain your arguments and use it strategically. Too many times I get students in front of me who get jazzed saying capitalism is bad and get caught up trying to correctly historicize China or Cuba because they know factoids compared to focusing on the strategy and overall purpose of the debate. K’s were my bread and butter and naturally I can provide the best feedback for it. But that is double-edged---it means I demand more from you in context to how you deploy and debate it. Also, very important note. Please explain your methodology instead of just saying cool leftist things. And I mean it. Your alternative evidence should be pointing out an actual method/praxis/starting point. Your alternative text should be written with meaning where every word is necessary. Too often students don’t really know what the alternative specifically means and just say things they’ve heard in other K rounds like “epistemic disobedience” or “guerilla tactics” or “flipping the script” without actually relating that back to the alternative evidence/text proper. Alternatives are varied and vast for a reason. Real differences between historical materialism and critical pedagogy on the *methodological* level. Point is---please explain your alt. Explain it correctly. Utilize it efficiently so that it solves the aff and your K proper.

7. How about impact turns? Yeah but obvi don’t read racism or patriarchy good. Not a fan of Malthus. De-dev is my jam. Wipeout is cool too.

8. Will you vote on theory? Yes, but just like the T and Framework stuff you need to explain the internals and impact theory out effectively. I don’t have any pre-disposition to any theory position that makes a certain side preferable to me than others. For instance on condo I honestly couldn’t care less because I think both sides have good reasons and am not a 50 year old coach who believes condo makes or breaks good debate. It’s up for debate!! Debate is up for debate!! And you win it by winning the debate!! What I will say is that I’d rather see 1-3 offcases with development out of the 1NC compared to 6-10 with little development. I enjoy more in depth debate but again I don’t intervene in this situation and it’s not gonna be persuasive for you to just say “hey you said you like depth!”.

Any other questions just ask. Happy debating!!

Kathryn Dorrell 7Z Lawrence HS

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

Former assistant coach for Lawrence High for two years. Debated at Olathe South for 4 years.

Updated 12/8/23

Please add me to the email chain. (dorrell.kathryn@gmail.com)

General Preferences

Do what you do best. There are very few arguments that I hate on a deep level or am in love with. I'm usually more comfortable with policy arguments but am familiar with K literature.

I've only judged sporadically this season, so starting off a under your top speed and working up to it would be helpful.

For me, your first priority should be on ensuring you have solid analysis in the debate. You can have the best evidence and arguments that could truly be deciding factors, but if the rebuttals consist of you just extending a bunch of cards or shallow one-line summaries of analytics from the constructives, you're not going to win. Tell me how the argument functions and why it's true. Without this work, that argument doesn't really exist on the flow to me.

More than anything please be nice. Snarkiness is awesome but there's a line between funny and just mean. Mistakes happen and I believe this is a fantastic space to educate each other. However, blatant sexism, racism, and any other -isms will not be tolerated. If in doubt, don't say it in the round, and let's have a conversation after.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can matter very little. On the flip side, if you have an amazing case that you pull through and defend you can afford to risk linking to a DA. That doesn't mean don't run any off-case or feel free to undercover a DA, but having a great case debate can be very beneficial.

DAs: DAs are great. If they're generic, that's fine. If they're case specific, even better. That being said, explain your internal link chain. Don't just spend every speech telling me why extinction is awful.

CPs: I think CPs are fun, but they do have to be competitive. I won't do the work for the aff, but if they perm it and it's very clearly not competitive, it'll be hard for you to come back from that.

Ks: Like I said, I don't have a super in-depth knowledge of specific kritiks but I do have a decent background in a good portion of philosophy. If you explain the basic thesis of the K, we should be good. That's not an excuse to use a bunch of weirdly long words that sound "kritiky" and then assume I know what you meant. Just like any other argument, give me warrants and analysis. Please tell me what the alt does! I'm all for unique alternatives, but I need to understand exactly what is going to happen.

K Affs/ Non-traditional Affs: I'm definitely open to non-traditional affirmatives, but I do tend to believe the affirmative has to be in the direction of the topic and have some kind of plan/ advocacy statement. What exactly that looks like is up to you, I just need to understand what exactly you're advocating for. If you aren't in the direction of the topic/ you reject the resolution, I'll definitely listen and keep an open mind. However, it tends to be pretty easy for negative teams to win on framework.

I haven't judged many of non-traditional affs so I can't tell you if I lean more towards framework or the aff, but I like both so you have a good shot either way. For framework, you can definitely argue that they have to relate to the topic or have a stated advocacy, but saying they should be excluded entirely is not going to go over well.

Theory: Not my favorite thing, but I'll always listen to it. It gets really annoying when seven different blippy theory arguments are read and then because the aff didn't respond to the sixth standard on you fifth theory argument that you blew through at the speed of light the entire round ends up coming down to that argument. A couple are totally fine, but more than that gets confusing.

Topicality: I like T, especially when it plays in with other arguments. It's always a voter, never a reverse-voter.

Framing: It seems like it's becoming more and more common to have pretty extensive impact framing debates. That's totally cool and I think it's a really interesting debate to be had. However, just reading a card that says probability first or extinction first doesn't make it true. Just like any other argument, give me the warrant and analysis.

Overall, run what you're good at and what you like. Make it the kind of round you want to have and I'll do my best to conform to it. With the exception of a few things, most of the stuff on here is pretty flexible if you explain a different perspective. Please ask me any other questions you have!

Randall Baldwin/C. Croven 8X Topeka HS None

Sam Schumann 8Y Topeka HS

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 11:14 AM MST

Big Questions Debate Paradigm

For Big Questions, it is hard to put a paradigm into words (unlike with my policy paradigm, which is below if you are interested). Because you cannot run the K (thank you Jesus!) this is about clash, argumentation, and evidence. This is what debate should be about in my opinion. So, present your arguments, provide some evidence, and listen to your opposition and try and prove your case is the better option than theirs. I know this is not much, and this sounds simple, but this is what good, real-life applicable debate is all about.

If you have more questions, ask before the round and I can clarify things further (well, hopefully).

CX Debate Paradigm

I am an old man. I am angry. I generally hate the K. instead, why don’t we talk about the resolution and throw an actually somewhat serious plan out there. Then, maybe the Neg could run a DA or two, and maybe an off-case item or two, all which have some basis in reality. I realize The Butterfly Effect sounds really cool and all, but a gnat farting in Florida should not provide enough impetus to launch a global thermonuclear war. I do not mind speed, but please be clear. If you cannot be understood, it does not really count as an argument. Also, I will also note that I hate open cross-ex. Both members of your team should know your case or arguments and be able to defend or expand upon them.

Final, fun note. I flow on paper. It means I will not take your document/data dump like the other team. It also means that I will give you the benefit of the doubt for reading the contents of a card if you do not actually do so. What is actually said in the round during a speech is what I judge upon. Nothing else. In addition, do not argue over a card the other team never read that somehow got mixed into a speech transfer by accident (I have watched this and I still do not understand it to this day).

I hope this helps.

Solomon Cottrell 9X BV North

Last changed on Wed November 4, 2015 at 9:26 AM CDT

Debated four years for Lawrence Free State High School, did not pursue debate in college. I judged four rounds on this topic at WaRu in September.

My general approach to rounds is that it is your job to win my ballot, and you should do that in whatever way you feel most comfortable with. I'm willing do vote on lots of different things for different reasons, what matters is that you crystallize your advocacy in a clear way and tell me why it means you win. I default policymaker, but it is your job to articulate the framework in which you want me to vote, and if you do that I'm pretty much willing to vote however you tell me to (provided you're winning that argument).

Mechanics

delivery: speed is fine. Clarity is far more important than speed, and I encourage you to go at the speed you're comfortable with rather than trying to spread for the hell of it, but at the end of the day speed is not going to be an obstacle to my understanding of your speech. I will yell clear if you are not clear.
Signposting: please have a clear line-by-line. It is infinitely easier to judge a debate if the debaters make arguments by responding directly to the previous speech instead of just reading straight down and leaving me to pick up the pieces. I don't want to have to draw arrows from an argument to its response.

Types of arguments

kritiks: kritiks are fine. My only demand is that every kritik must have a clear, textual alternative. And "reject the aff" isn't an alt, it's what I do when I agree with the alt.
CP/DA's: I prefer specificity (who doesn't?) but generics are fine as long as you do the work.
performance: this is fine, just please identify the function of the ballot and the framework you want me to vote in as quickly and clearly as possible.
Theory: it should have its own page on the flow. Same with framework.

At the end of the day, I want to see the 2nd rebuttals get up and point to a specific point on the flow and give me a clear, convincing reason to vote there. Clear, compelling impact framing on specific issues goes a long way in final speeches. Don't try to win on a bunch of things, pick one good thing and win on it. Do that in whatever way you choose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions before the round.

Saif Bajwa/Minha Jutt 9Y BV North

Luke Hartman 9Z BV North

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 9:07 AM CDT

lukehartman3@gmail.com

Background:

I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was previously an assistant coach at Blue Valley North (2014-2018 and 2021-2022), a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute (2018), and an assistant coach at Peninsula (2019-2021). I am now a patent lawyer based in Austin.

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.
Logic > tech > truth
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.
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. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), 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. 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.

Debates judged (current topic): 0

Debates judged (career): 337

Login to Tabroom

KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 2018

2018 — Emporia, KS/US

KSHSAA 2-Person State Paradigm List

Judges