KSHSAA 6A 2 Speaker Shadow Tab 2018

2018 — Emporia, KS/US

Steve Wood 10X Paradigm

Not Submitted

Charlie Stebbins 10Y Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeana Scott 10Z Paradigm

Not Submitted

Art Delgado 11X Paradigm




# of years debated in HS


# of years debated in College 4 What College/University University of Central Missouri


Currently a (check all that apply)  X Head HS Coach


____College Coach    X College Debater


____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate


# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 12


What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?


_____Policy Maker   X Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa


_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)


What do you think the Aff burdens should be?


 The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution


What do you think the Neg burdens should be?


 The Negative has presumption, but they should argue both on and off case.


How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?


 This is a communication event.


How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?


 I will listen to DA, CP, and K. However, I am not interested in perfomance debate--please adapt.


How I feel about case debates?


 the Affirmative MUST win case.


Other Comments/Suggestions:


David Kingston 11Y Paradigm

Hey you should know I'm not at SME on 11/9-11/10. I'm not judging those rounds. I don't know who is. I tried to get the tabroom to change the pairings.

I was told to be more specific with my debate experience. So:

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 graduated in 1994. I did well at CEDA Nationals -- I was told to modify this to say I won CEDA Nationals in 1994 <-- there I said it.
After that, I was a grad assistant at Univ of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing 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 including Kentucky fellows lab, Emory, Stanford, UMKC, and Vermont.
I've helped out several college teams here and there for the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and working on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

I want to be on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com Makes life easier.

I never know what to say in these things. I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've seen a bunch of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

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. If you have an obscure one, you might want to explain it.

I'm also fine with other debate arguments, like counterplans, disads, T, case turns, and things like that. Although no one asks me about that stuff.

I try to vote on things you say, not things that I make up about things you say.

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, remove analytics, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vise 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.

Kristi Kingston 11Z Paradigm

I debated for 4 years in high school at Raytown High School in MO.  I qualified to NLF (NSDA) in policy debate my senior year.  I also debated in college at UMKC in the early 90's.  While in college, I worked as an assistant coach under Deborah Glenn at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, and I worked as a lab leader at UMKC's debate camp.  While I have a background in debate, it has been hit and miss over the years as to how often I have been out judging rounds.

I have no objection to speed.  I can flow, and I will vote on the issues you present during the round. I have not judged many kritik debates.  However, we ran cap bad and other arguments like that in college.  So, if the K has a link to the plan, I am fine with it.

Like many former debaters, I am now an attorney and represent individuals who have been discriminated against in the workplace and/or who have and their civil rights violated.

Chris Biswell 12X Paradigm

debated @ esu for 4 1/2

assistant coach @ Newton for 3

assistant coach @ smw current for 3

chrisbiswell (at) gmail dot com

fyi - A recent injury has made it so I can not grasp a pen for any serious length if time. Not that anyone could read my handwriting anyway, but you'll likely notice ballots being less filled out with a recommendation to email me for more in depth comments. If the tournament is okay with a frd in round, the ballot may just be outright blank, but feel free to still email for a follow up. *this does not impact actual flowing, only written ballots*

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Affs - it's all fine, role of judge/ballot is appreciated if you do not fiat USFG action. if it's clear the neg has no idea what is going on then I would appreciate you not just reading your blocks and instead helping them a long a bit.

Case args - big fan of modular impact turns and terminal pre/post fiat presumption arguments. A slick add-on in the 2ac to the CP/K is usually as effective as a impact turn pivot in the block.

Impact framing - not to be confused with framework - tbh this usually at best is a call for the neg to extend warrants, which they are gonna do anyway. I generally think this page is a waste of time and relying on it exclusively is usually not going to win me over.

T/framework - competing interps, case lists help with resolving offense. you can be center of the topic and still lose on t if you mishandle the tech.

DA - they can be a little shaky if the on case or cp trades off with the aff well.

CP - cheating ones usually have good reasons why they are bad, making the X cp bad arg on the aff is usually enough. I'm a sucker for good, clever pics tho. I'll buy sufficenecy framing most of the time, especially on an aff biased topic where there is poor neg ground.

K - alts are overrated but if you do have one I appreciate it being explained as a process rather than an event. I tend to be sympathetic to proximate > root cause arguments absent something to mitigate the proximate cause.

For speaks I try and stick to the tournament standard at the time but if thats not avalible then i go with the below.

30 - superior tech, argument deployment, rhetoric. no way to improve your performance in this debate. I feel like you could easily be in semi finals, if not win the entire thing.

29 - missing one of the above. small improvements could be made. A solid octs and above projection.

28 - average. you tried, and it was apparent. lots of room for improvement. I could see you making it to partials/doubles but you'll have a tough time past that.

27 - questionable effort, multiple mistakes. I'd see you going maybe 4-4 at best.

26 and below - you said/did something very problematic.

Rose Lawler 12Y Paradigm


Amanda Courtney/Tim Leffert 12Z Paradigm


Lisa Deal 13X Paradigm

Judge focuses on stock issues and communication skills.  Judged two rounds at Halstead Tournament and four rounds at Sunflower State Tournament

Mari Dietz 13Y Paradigm

I am an assistant debate coach at a 6A school. I am not a fan of spreading in any way. I don't mind a fast pace if it is articulate. I follow the arguments that are carried through the whole round and those that are logical are the issues I care about. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages as long as there is a link.

Steven Ray 13Z Paradigm

  I am a debate coach at a 6A school.  I can judge at any rate, but I believe that real world persuasiveness is actuallt enhanced with a more moderate rate and using effective emphasis and inflection.  Most important part of the debate round is clash and resolution, so logical arguments carried all the way through are what really matters. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages if there is a verifiable link to the affirmative plan, and counterplans if they are non-topical and competitive witht he affirmative plan.

Brian Meredith/Ideen Saidian 14X Paradigm


Russell French 14Y Paradigm

I am a Policymaker judge that also pays attention to the Stock issues. I believe that I can handle a faster rate of delivery as long as it is articulated well. I debated in high school and have been an assistant debate coach for over a decade. If most everyone else understands the delivery, odds are that I will also. If you fear you might be going too fast or not certain that you are being clear you are probably correct and I would suggest slowing down. If I can't understand you I will not say "clear" I will only understand less. Fast delivery does not mean stronger arguments.

I expect the 1AC to present a plan text. I also prefer case-specific evidence for links to DA's. I'm fine with Counterplans but I am not an advocate or fan of Kritiks or theoretical debate.

I expect everyone to be polite, courteous and professional. I genuinely care about this event and everyone involved.

Arianne Fortune 14Z Paradigm

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

Michael Shelton 15X Paradigm

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and am currently an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS.

General Approach: It's your job to win my ballot, not mine. I'm willing to vote on a lot of different things for a lot of different reasons, but that's not a decision I want to have to make and I won't do any of your work for you (i.e. tell me what I should be voting on and why). If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then I expect you to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one 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 you win 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). Tell me where the work you're doing goes and what it's responding to, I won't do it for you.
  • Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody that I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you.
  • Cross Examination - Don't use cross-ex to make arguments, and don't badger each other incessantly. Make your point or get an answer, then move on.
  • Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer, but I won't take it upon myself to 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; I've voted for teams that haven't done the things below and against teams that have.)

  • 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 developed beyond each side establishing that they have a framework different from the other team.
  • Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that it has a text. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative.
  • 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 developed beyond each side reading a frontline.

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

  • 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.
  • Impact calculus.
  • 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 where you choose what to win the round on. I don't want you to try to win it multiple times in multiple ways, I want you to win it once and in the best way possible.
  • I won't ask for evidence after the round if there's any way to avoid it.

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 nothing more than a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions, you'll win more times than you'll lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions

Johannah Smith 15Y Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jack Delehanty 15Z Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tim Quinn 16X Paradigm

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 Paradigm

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 Paradigm

I debated in high school 2008-2012 and competed in parliamentary debate in college 2012-2013.

I do not like having to do a lot of work on the ballot or the flow by completing arguments for you. The team that tells me how to vote and why to vote their way the best will normally win. I do not normally vote on T unless it is a clear violation. I will listen to any and all arguments that a team wants to make as long as the argument is clear. Do not try to run something just because you think I will like it, run what you are comfortable with.

Speed is not normally an issue for me as long as you are clear. I do appreciate rebuttals being slowed down a little. Like I said, I like teams that verbally write the ballot for me and tell me why to vote for them, this normally requires you to slow down a little to make a convincing argument.

I do not want anyone to be rude in my rounds. There is a nice way to cross x someone and to try to interrupt them for another question without being rude. I will not vote on this, but it will affect your speaker points if you are rude to the opposing team.

If you have questions, please ask.

Julia Henry/Tim Ellis 17X Paradigm

Add me: JuTheWho@gmail.com

Updated 2/18/19

Currently debating at KU (3rd year). Debated at Hutchinson HS for four years.

Read what you want in front of me, but that doesn't mean I will know everything there is to know about the arguments you are making. I read more policy arguments than anything else, but that also doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen and vote on other forms of arguments.

I haven't judged outside of Kansas this year and I also haven't judged very many debates in general, so I know very little about this topic. Please don't expect me to know the ends and outs of every topic specific argument.

Please be kind and respectful to everyone in the room. It makes the debate space much more enjoyable to be in.

Kritiks: Preferable if they have a specific link, but as long as you win a framework argument and an impact to the link you should be fine. However, I am persuaded by case outweighs arguments if coupled with a framework argument as well. It just depends on who does the best debating.

Counterplans: Are always welcome. You should make a judge kick argument.

Disads: Again, very welcome. Remember that I haven't judged very many high level debates this year. Don't assume I know the intricacies of them. Explanation > tons of cards.

Topicality: Also, Explanation > tons of cards. In order for me to vote on T I need an impact to vote on. No offense means you don't get my ballot.

Framework: I read it a lot but don't equate this with me hacking for it. You again have to win an impact, and win defense to any impact turns they are going for. Creative TVAs are very welcome, and can be very helpful with dealing with aff offense. Aff teams, you don't need a lot of arguments to win my ballot. If you win that your impact turn outweighs their impacts or an interp that solves a lot of the negs offense, you can win my ballot.

Zoe Crater 17Y Paradigm


Rob Owens 17Z Paradigm

I am an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School. However, I don’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly work with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over two years. So I would not decide to pick it up anymore than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument however if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to. Policy maker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

Mac Phrommany 18X Paradigm


Angel Zelazny 18Y Paradigm

Not Submitted

Catherine Rankin 19X Paradigm


Wendy Dies 19Y Paradigm

My main concern when judging a round is whether or not I can understand what is being said. If a speaker stumbles over a lot of words when reading a case, it shows lack of preparation for the round. If you use vocabulary that is not in everyday language, you should define what you referencing, especially if you are using acronyms. I appreciate when the arguments have a nice flow to them. Evidence is extremely important to me. I like to see good sportsmanship, so being polite to the other team is key.

Seth Peck 1X Paradigm


Cory Newman 1Y Paradigm

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 Paradigm


Meagan Deutch 20X Paradigm

While I did not debate in high school, I do have a lot of experience in speech and theater. I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 6 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Josh Dale 20Y Paradigm

I am a former high school and collegiate debater. I am an attorney and an assistant debate coach at Shawnee Mission North.

Since I flow on paper, you may want to slow down. Please be clear while speaking. If I stop flowing, you are not being clear enough. I do not want to be on your e-mail chain. I am holding you accountable for the articulation of all arguments. I am not simply going to follow along on a laptop while you arguably read the entirety of the cards.

I am open to all forms of argumentation EXCEPT critical arguments. If you make a critical argument, your team will lose.

Please don't try to shake my hand.

Please be nice to each other.


The grumpy old man who wants you off of his lawn

Margaret Bernard 20Z Paradigm

I debated in high school for 4 years. Since then, I've spent 6 years as an assistant debate coach, first for St. Thomas Aquinas and now for Shawnee Mission North.

Before anything else, be kind in round. Nothing is more frustrating to watch than debaters being rude in round.

As a judge, I default policy maker - maybe better described as an offense defense paradigm. This does not mean that I cannot be convinced by other arguments. I believe that it is the job of the teams competing to tell me under what framework I should vote and why. I will vote for Ks. However, I am not well read on K literature. In order to win that argument you need to be able to explain it well enough that I understand. Topicality, I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me a different way to vote and why.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I can follow speed as long as you are clear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Kevin Barnes/Ben Volen 21X Paradigm

Not Submitted

Phil Volen/Ken King 21Y Paradigm

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 Paradigm


Sean Atchley/Ivan Moya 22Y Paradigm

I am a fourth-year Assistant Debate Coach at Garden City High School. I did not debate in high school or college, but I teach History and Government. I expect for debaters to understand how government works, especially in regards to how their plan works (How is the plan passed? What powers/functions do each of the branches of government have? What government entities are regulatory agencies?)

I do flow debates. However, please don't take this to mean that I only want to hear tags, and then given a demonstration of speed reading. I would much rather see a concise argument with evidence that directly applies to the case, and a demonstration of your understanding of said evidence.

I'm not a big fan of extreme impacts (I find it relatively unlikely that a plan conceived by a high school student will lead to global warming or nuclear holocaust). There had better be a pretty strong, direct link for me to vote on those kinds of impacts. Be reasonable.

Topicality is not typically a voting factor for me - if you choose to take that route, it should be clear-cut that the plan is not topical.

Beyond that, please be civil to your partner and opponents. If you are rude to, or condescending to a competitor (or myself) that will likely affect my decision in the round, and definitely speaking points.

Jamie Welch 23X Paradigm

Put me on email chains: jamiewelch46@gmail.com

I currently debate at Wichita State University and coach at Maize high school in Kansas.

**** Note for immigration: I know very little about the specifics of this topic. If you are reading a counterplan that is complex, requires some knowledge about that mechanism, etc. then you should explain those things a bit more than someone who is heavily involved.

Evidence – it is important. Evidence quality includes both author qualifications as well as the claims and warrants within the evidence. I couldn't care less how cool of a card you read if the card was written by Tyler Durden from Zero Hedge. It is important for you to tell me how to interpret evidence.

Disads/Case – I love them. I do not have any proclivities to any kind of DA. Read whatever you want. I like impact turn debates too. I reward good case debate with better speaks.

Soft left affs: I do not think the cohn card or any other probability card is very persuasive. These cards usually cause lazy debating where people don't read evidence and just assert the internal links of the DA are made up. I think your best option are things like no war (or no risk of X impact) and k's of their impacts because they actually answer the DA.

Counterplans – Love these too. Even cheating ones like consult and delay. I don't have a particular opinion as to what CP's should and should not be read.

Theory – Conditionality is good, being neg is hard. Most theory amounts to rejecting the argument unless something is so egregious that it constitutes voting against someone - in my five years of judging I have never experienced a situation like this.

Ks – I am not familiar with a lot of K literature. That being said don’t be afraid to read them just realize my expectations may be different than someone who has read the literature themselves. A big problem a lot of Ks have is solvency. Rarely does the alt actually do anything which is something I think negatives should spend time explaining if you say the alt solves a thing. You don't always have to go for the alt nor does the alt always have to do a thing. I think alts that act as nuanced framework arguments are awesome.

Couple of notes:

- Long overviews are a snoozefest. Your speaker points get better when you have embedded clash.

- Speaking in paragraphs at full speed with no reference to what you're answering is also a snoozefest

FW/T – Fairness is an impact. Limits matter. Reading a topical position is not too much to ask for. However, that doesn’t mean that because you don’t read a plan I won’t vote for you but rather what it means to be topical is up for debate. Without a solid interp of what “your world of debate” would look like I am less likely to vote on your impact turns. Give judge direction how to evaluate your arguments versus things like topical version, switch side, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Other notes:

- Don't speak into your laptop.

- Clipping is cheating and you’ll get zero speaker points and lose.

- Jokes are good.

- Be a smart ass not a jackass.

Any other questions feel free to ask

Geff Moyer 2X Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dave Miller 2Y Paradigm

Not Submitted

Trisha Gomel 2Z Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaycee Zeck 3X Paradigm

Jaycee was a 3 year high school debater, and state qualifier. She judged the Gardner Edgerton home tournament this season.

Deb Osborn 3Y Paradigm

Deb is my assistant debate coach. She has judged at our home tournament and various tournaments throughout the season.

Mike Zegers 3Z Paradigm

Debate coach at Gardner Edgerton high school. Judged various rounds throughout the season at various tournaments.

Parker Mitchell 4X Paradigm

Parker Mitchell Updated for: KSHSAA State, 2019.


Quick version, FAQs and Pet Peeves

I'm Parker, u can call me that, or judge, or whatever. He/They/She are all fine.

Plz don't shake my hand.

On the big question of framework, i vote either way often.

Competing interps are best

There is NOT "always a risk"

Fairness can be, but isn't always, an impact

I flow cx

Speed is good (except when it's not: a K of speed for ""education"" purposes is silly, but accessibility/disability Ks of form are winnable.)

Postround me if you want

In general, all arguments are winnable, just weigh your impacts.

EXCEPTIONS: Racism, sexism, transphobia, explicit suicide advocacy (there are more nuanced ways to read death good), homophobia, ableism. Do not advocate for these things as good. I am generally in the camp that all arguments are debatable on the technical level, but these exceptions are critical to avoid explicit in-activity violence that prevents people from competing. This is apriori. I have only had to utilize this exception once, and it was because someone was defending George Zimmerman. Don't do that.


My ballot decides whether or not the proposition of the affirmative (plan, advocacy, performance are all forms of propositions) is better than the proposition of the negative (whether that be the status quo or an alternative/counterplan). Exceptions: a question of whether or not the presentation of the aff or neg ought to be rejected apriori (theory [t, condo, etc.] or critique-based [misgendering, etc.]), unless I have been presented with a persuasive reason to not consider one side's proposition, I will default to weighing one position against the other. In the case the debate must be resolved apriori to the "substance" of the debate I will still end up weighing one "world" (e.g. the interp) against another (the counterinterp).

Tech/Truth: Don’t change your arguments for me. I do believe debate (at the fundamental level) is a game, and therefore I'm open to any kind of strategy that will help you win that game. I will end the debate in favor of one proposition resolved only by the arguments in the round. I will use the technical aspects of the round to reach this decision.

ETC: That is my fundamental philosophy which I will not deviate from. For my biases on your favorite arguments see below, as well as some useful info on my preferences on your delivery and administrative practices. An appendix is included of my past voting record so you can consider the effectiveness of your strategy in front of me in the past. This is a policy debate paradigm, my paradigms for other events are also listed in the appendix if I am judging you in one of those events.


4 years of debate for Shawnee Mission East high school in Kansas, currently debating for the University of Missouri at Kansas City (3 years), asst coach at Shawnee Mission East (3 years). I have also worked with DKC, specifically Turner HS.


T: T is my favorite argument and the one I have the most experience with. It is often the most strategic option regardless of affirmative. RVIs are bad, but T can be impact turned if done well by a K aff. Both sides need an interp. If you don’t meet any interp you probably lose. I will evaluate under competing interpretations almost always. Reasonability is silly.

CPs: Counterplans are the 2nd best way to moot the aff. Functional competition is a good standard and trumps textual competition in most instances. Cheating CPs are "fine", win theoretical justifications+substance and you will win, probably not going to reject the team.

Statuses: In general, condo is good, dispo is silly, uncondo is ridiculous. If you’re going for condo bad, you’ll need an interpretation and reasons why your specific interp is good. Don't assume infinite condo is outrageous, I will attempt to evaluate theory with the same technical rigor as substance. That said, IF YOU'RE GONNA READ STATUS THEORY ASK WHAT THE STATUS IS.

DAs: I've found I've sat (or been postrounded) in a couple of close debates with DA/Case strategies against the negative. I have difficulty assigning "minute risk" on disads if a no link is persuasive and/or conceded. If I can't tell a story about why the aff is bad then it's difficult for me to vote negative. This is not to say that I won't vote on these strategies, in fact, I enjoy them, but will want a clean 2nr that covers your bases particularly on the link level, or have a significant mitigation through a CP or really good impact framing.

Ks: The neg can critique both plan and non-plan parts of the aff. "Weighing the aff” is probably also good. Work out these nuances. I think I have a pretty good idea of the functions of most critical literature read in debate but making broad assumptions is dangerous. You can’t get away just reading blocks at your computer.

K Affs: They can be a valuable way of interacting with the resolution. Framework is also a good, strategic argument. I find fairness claims generally more persuasive than education ones.


Flowing: If it's on one sheet in the 1nc it will remain that way on my flow. Each individual sheet will be straight down, overviews not separate. Any "global overview" will be on the first sheet in the order. You can flow a separate sheet if you want but I won't.

Speed: Speed is generally good. Maintain clarity. I will clear you a few times and if you don’t get clearer, it’s your problem. I should be able to hear the full body of the card but I should be able to hear it.

CX: CX is important. I flow cross-x. It's binding. Open > Closed, but one debater dominating both CXs will lose both debaters speaks.

Language: I don’t mind swear words. Don't be mean to the other team. The use of racial/sexist/homophobic/transphobic slurs, in any way other than as used by individuals who are affected by those slurs, will not be tolerated resulting in 0 speaks and a loss. For gendered language, I will not *automatically* reject the team although I take this very seriously. Mistakes happen very often, but so must sincere apologies. However, repeated offenses and disdain for this issue will be punished.

Postrounding: you are welcome to. I enjoy a team that argues passionately for what they care for. This is not license to be a jerk but I do appreciate well stated questions to my RFD. I have been wrong before. Once.


Clipping: Always cheating. If you are making an accusation have proof and be willing to stake the round on it. I will immediately stop the round, review the evidence, and come to a conclusion. If the accused party did clip they will receive the Loss and 0 speaks, the accusing party will receive 0 speaks if the accused party did not clip. I will surrender to tournament regulations if need by on questions of the punishment.

Disclosure: I will orally disclose my decision after the round provided the tournament allows it. Please disclose pre-debate. It's good and disclosure theory can be a voter.

Prep: Flashing is not on prep time unless it's clear you're abusing it. Don't steal prep.

Speaks: Adjusted based on tournament pool: A novice 29.5 =! a TOC circuit 29.5. I will use CDR's points rubric which is based on statistical analysis.


Appendix 1: Obituary

(I used to have a really long list of decisions in here but I forgot to update it and I've now forgotten what I've voted on in a number of debates. RIP)

Appendix 2: LD Paradigm

I have limited LD experience, I debated it for a couple of years in KS and went to NSDA nationals. Speed, Ks, plans are fine, I may not fully understand the nuances of LD theory however, so more explanation may be needed. I will flow (on paper because I don't have an LD flowing template), please let's try to all flow the round in the same way, tell me how many sheets I should be flowing the AC/NC on, and where you're going. There seems to be no universally agreed upon way to flow an LD round so I will bend to the will of you all.

In terms of how I evaluate the round, this will be determined by the debaters. I never really understood value/value-criterion as anything other than the framing of the round. I think at the end of the round I (unless a plan/cp has been read) will be deciding whether or not the resolution is good/true. What this means can be interpreted and explained out by the debaters, but in general I'm not deciding who's value is better or who's criterion is better. This means if the neg wins their value and criterion this is not an auto-win, if affirming the resolution fulfills this criterion better (as per the arguments on the flow), then the aff wins.

Appendix 3: PFD Paradigm

I don't judge a lot of this, but since I started judging Missouri tournaments I have ended up in this event on occasion. This is probably the mainstream debate event in which I have the least experience, and I tend to enjoy judging the other events more. I will evaluate the debate on the flow, and I will attempt to flow (although this is difficult given the structure and style of PFD, my flows often get messy). Your case (pro or con) should include offensive reasons to vote for your side, not just defense. I think that, however, whichever team goes second (even before the first crossfire) should attempt to answer the points of the other team's case in their first speech. I believe that the second speech should also extend points from their previous speech, even and especially if dropped by opponents. I will consider these dropped (or kicked) arguments unless both sides drop all their cases in which case it is a wash and I'll go on evaluating the debate from there.

Crossfire is too often used as an excuse to talk at each other and not to each other. Even though you don't have to be directly posing questions during crossfire, it shouldn't just be stating arguments back at each other, respond and adapt your arguments throughout the crossfire. I would prefer if this was treated more like cross-x is in debate, but I understand why it isn't.

Appendix 4: Congress Paradigm

lmao go for legislation flaws every speech

Jennifer Burrus 4Y Paradigm


Adam Moon 4Z Paradigm

I debated in high school for 4 years at Shawnee Mission North . I have been a coach for 5 years, 3 at Shawnee Mission West and 2 at Shawnee Mission East.

All arguments should be extended with a warrant. I will consider a dropped argument true if you extend with a warrant.

I prefer speed to be a bit faster than conversation and can generally follow a faster style of debate so long as you are clear. To be more specific, please be clear and a slower on tags, and I would advise slowing down when you make topicallity, theory arguments or anything that is very technical. If you are too fast or unclear I will not flow your argument.

As a judge I will default policymaker, and to me this means I look at the debate from an offense/defense perspective. I have voted on critical arguments before, but I for me framework and role of the ballot arguments are very important in such a round. I am unfamiliar with most K literature since the only K's I ran were Cap and Security. It is up to the team to explain very clearly their alt and link.

I believe theory is generally a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but I can be persuaded. Condo arguments are an exception.

I lean towards reasonability with Topicallity. This doesn't mean you shouldn't go for T in your 2NR. If the aff drops significant parts of the T debate there is a really good chance you can convince me to vote on it. I've watched alot of teams not go for T when they should.

Please ask me any other questions you may have.

Kristen White 5X Paradigm


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.


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 Paradigm

Last Updated: Fall 2018

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Assistant Debate Coach for 8 years, 6 of those at Olathe Northwest

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. I prefer not to look at speech docs unless I feel there’s no other option.

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 Paradigm


Melissa Swauncy 6X Paradigm

Background: 1 year High School Debate (Policy). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (Worlds). 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). Currently in my second year as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High.

Overall Philosophy: I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals . While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. 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.


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.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time.

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.

Speed: 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)

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.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent or partner will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you.

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

Stella Yang 6Y Paradigm

Please add me to the email chain: stella.yang0317(at)gmail(dot)com

Background: I am a former debater for Wichita East. I debated for four years from 2012-2016, primarily doing open debate. I've judged 1-2 tournaments a year since graduating, so I'm not super familiar with the topic.

Preferences: I prefer a moderate rate of delivery. I am most familiar with DA/CP/Case debate. Please limit yourself to 1 or 2 perms on each CP. I am not a good judge for T and K debates (that's not to say topicality isn't important). If you do run a K, please explain it well to me.

Round Etiquette: Be respectful to one another, that includes opponents and partners. I don't care about Open CX, but if 1 partner does most of the answering/asking that will affect speaker points. Don't steal prep. Don't ask if everyone is ready, everyone is ready and will say something if they aren't.

Andrew Halverson 6Z Paradigm

Name: Andrew Halverson
School: Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS), Assistant Coach
Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State.

[BELOW IS UPDATED FOR DCI AND STATE - My original philosophy is after the update.]

I'm going to be that person that vent a bunch of my pet peeves regarding how the logistics of the debate go and how I adjudicate debates. Here's goes a quick list (I intended this to be a quick list, but now it's decent sized list of what grinds my gears):

1. If possible, I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). If not, I want your speech docs flashed to me before you speak. 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 - these national qualifier 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.

2. Don't make the roadmap harder than it needs to be. PLEASE DO HAVE A ROADMAP! If you were giving a 1nc roadmap, it should sound something like, "There will be 4 off and then case in the order of Advantage 1, Advantage 2, and Solvency." DON'T SAY: "It'll be 4 off and case." WTAF?! Where do I flow these arguments on case? Find a place to put your arguments. Keep to it.

3. This jumping around on the flow thing is ridiculous. I have judged more debates than I can count this year where a debater says: "On Solvency, the AFF is key to...wait, back onto Topicality. Reasonability should be the lens to evaluate T because...oh, back on the other T." THIS DRIVES ME BONKERS!! Be clean on your flows. If I can't figure out where you and what's you're doing it will costs you lots of speaker points and, most likely, a victory.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Read below about this but 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.

7. Stop stealing prep time. In terms of flashing, prep stops when the save is complete and the flash drive leaves your computer. At this point, 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 on the panel - 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.

8. 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.

9. 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. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter, 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 theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gavin Fritton 7X Paradigm

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. 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'm flexible and willing to change for the round. I would seriously LOVE to judge more hypo-testing.

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.

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/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 plan is topical.

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 gave. While speed is fine, in my role 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. 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 "L," but I will punish you on speaks if your conduct warrants it. My politics lean left, but I consciously try to monitor and be aware of 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.

Finally, you are encouraged to wear salmon-colored trousers. Wear all the salmon you can. Coral, pink, red, all of it. Let your true colors show. All the best judges vote for the debater wearing salmon, especially salmon trousers.

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 am highly adaptable and can judge a round geared for lay judges and I can just as easily judge one geared to impress college judges.

Alex Glanzman 7Y Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kathryn Dorrell 7Z Paradigm

Debated at Olathe South for 4 years. Assistant Coach for Lawrence High.

Update 10/29/2018

katydorrell@ku.edu (Please add me to the email chain! Thanks!)

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'm pretty good with speed but I'll say clear if I get lost. As long as you slow down for tags I'll be okay.

For me, you're 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.

Case: To me, case is the most important part of the debate. If it's a fundamentally bad case, off-case can legitimately not matter. 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 to me, 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 Paradigm


Sam Schumann 8Y Paradigm


Max Stucky-Halley 8Z Paradigm

Not Submitted

Solomon Cottrell 9X Paradigm

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). 


  • 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 Paradigm

Disads: Good. Read them.

Topicality: Good. Reasonability is bad.

Counterplans: Competitive counterplans are good.

Kritiks: I don't read a lot of K stuff. Explain what you are trying to say thoroughly. If I don't understand it, I won't vote for it.

Luke Hartman 9Z Paradigm


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

General Comments:

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


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


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.

Rounds judged (immigration topic): 14

Rounds judged (career): 199

Email address: lukehartman3[at]gmail.com

Mia Bonito Paradigm

Not Submitted

Allie Chase Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matt Coleman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andie Divelbiss Paradigm

Not Submitted

Brenden Kearney Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Marchbank Paradigm

Not Submitted

Will Mercer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lainey Schrag Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dakota Yates Paradigm

Not Submitted