McPherson HolyCow Invitational N JV OP
2019 — McPherson, KS/US
Debate Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI 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.
I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.
About me :P
This is my fourth year debating at Wichita State University and my eighth year in the activity. From Nae Edwards' paradigm: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. GLHF.
Obviously, every judge comes into a debate with their own preconceptions about life and the activity. I'll do my best to ignore these and vote along the instruction I've been given in-round. I will reward debaters and teams who tell me how to vote and why.
More specific thoughts:
Planless Affs
--- I love how creative they can be and love the tech of clash debates. I'll vote either way, pls be organized and don't forget your 1AC exists. Those 8 minutes of you yapping, vibing to music, etc. should always be leveraged as offense.
--- For teams reading these affs: make the debate and its impacts as in-round as possible. Give reasons as to why proximal impacts are more important and how the ballot can resolve these but not the neg's impacts. Also, get read of those minute-long solvency explanations at the top of your speeches and explain the aff through line-by-line. It's far more efficient, persuasive, and strategic.
--- For teams debating against these affs: make the debate and its impacts as out-of-round and generalizable as possible while leveraging in-round instances of abuse as links to your offense. (i.e., a no-link to a disad proves your offense on T) You'll be in a really good spot if I know why models are good and important, how the ballot resolves your offense, and how your impacts are actually proximate in the instance of this particular round.
--- I've always thought that debaters (and judges) heavily undervalue presumption. I read a planless aff for years and I'll be the first to admit that they don't do anything and can't solve their impacts 99.9% of the time. Teams tend to be really, really bad at justifying why that's okay or even debatable. I will absolutely pull the trigger on presumption and it's very, very hard to convince me that it could ever be an RVI without substantial defense as to why solving your impacts is bad somehow.
--- Fairness can be an impact but it can also be an internal link to clash/education, both routes can be persuasive. Whatever you're doing, just answer things correctly and tell me why your impact is more important and you'll probably be ahead.
--- T/FW is not your only tool to beating these affs. Put unexpected pressure on them. Smart PIKs, impact turns, DAs, or unconventional Ks can always be something of an option and can be levied to make T/FW even more persuasive. You have nothing to lose from reading more than 1 or 2 off in the 1AC. Every planless aff is built to answer your generic t/fw + cap k 1NC but very few are ready for warming good or your Japan Prolif DA.
DAs
--- The more specific the better -- this goes for links, evidence quality, and impact comparison/turns case analysis.
--- The more offensive your response to DAs, (typically) the better. Throw out link turns and impact turns when its strategic and I'll be happy. A block that has to answer impact turns on their bad food prices and econ DAs that they never intended to go for anyway is so much less fun to execute. Link turns can be applied strategically across pages, don't forget about your offense.
CPs
--- I'm persuaded by theory args against arguably cheaty CP's (multiplank, consult, etc.). This is more of a check against these CPs than an ethical gripe -- I think they're much harder to answer and the aff has far less tools to do so. I am more than happy to vote for them, just be sure to really cover your bases on the theory side of things in the 2NR.
Ks
--- I've dabbled in and read deeply from a bunch of different literature bases and feel comfortable evaluating and commenting/critiquing on whatever you want to read.
--- I've always thought of the K as a CP+DA and advise you to do the same, it makes everything so much more organized and digestible. As with planless affs, I don't need your minute long overview, the best K teams make use of line-by-line to explain and develop arguments.
--- This isn't super important, but I think it's really funny and wrong when teams of a certain ethnicity read from a literature base that does not "belong to them". I think there are potential justifications that can be made for this but, considering the privilege that lies in voyeurism, I'm highly sympathetic to someone saying you can't read black nihilism as an Indian kid from the 'burbs. I'm sorry buddy but the optics are not in your favor, I don't make the rules.
KvK
--- Either the best or the worst debates but usually messy and needlessly difficult to evaluate.
--- Implicate their theory of power in the explanation of your own. My favorite debates I've ever been in were the ones where both teams were prepared for 3rd and 4th level testing of each other's methodology and theory of power. Be as specific as possible and persuasion will follow.
--- Please, for the love of God, explain the perm. It's not a magic wand that makes the 8 minutes I spent listening to the 1NC disappear.
Theory
--- I honestly love theory debates but don't really enjoy judging them since debaters tend to get lost in the sauce and forget that offense/defense applies here as well. Just stay organized, win your offense, and you'll probably be ahead.
--- Neg-leaning on most things but can be persuaded either way.
Etc.
--- I love impact turns and will vote for anything from wipeout to warming good. I think these debates can be really funny and entertaining but also educational and I enjoy watching/participating in them. As highlighted above, read whatever you want and I will adjudicate accordingly.
--- Impact defense is the most underrated thing in debate. This applies to a DA/CP debate or a K debate -- it is so much easier to win a critique of the aff's security logics if you're winning their Chinese tech leadership scenario is doodoo. Make a concerted effort to explain exactly why their impact scenarios are non-unique, incoherent, or just wrong and you will be rewarded.
--- Always be thinking big picture and about the 2NR/2AR and most of everything will fall into place. Don't overcomplicate moving pieces and always try to have a clear understanding of how different pages interact. This is an x-factor that can get you out of tough debates and put your opponent in a disadvantageous position even when it seems they're far ahead on something damning.
--- Speaker points are about evidence comparison, organization, strategic awareness, impact calc, and judge instruction. I will also reward free food and humor, pls make me laugh.
--- If you want a few references for how I hope to evaluate debates, go read Phillip Samuel's, Thomas Babcock's, Azja Butler's, Devane Murphy's, or Lindsey Shook's paradigms. These are some of the people that have taught me what I know or that I trust having in the back of a debate regardless of context.
--- Ultimately, debate is like any other creative pursuit in that the beauty of it tends to be in how grandly elegant 3 or 4 basic elements can be. Don't make it complicated. Boil the debate down to its essentials and remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you are defending an advocacy, tell me what the world of that advocacy looks like and why it would be preferable to the opposing advocacy. This is likely what my RFD will sound like.
I debated for four years. I absolutely love seeing CP and Ts but if you don't know how to run them, please don't run them. Aff must answer all arguments brought up by Neg. Neg must tell me WHY an argument is important & why I as the judge should care. DO NO RUN A KRITIK.
I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.
I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.
Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.
You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...
I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.
Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...
Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:
I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.
Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..
When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.
Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.
CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.
Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.
Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.
In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.
Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.
T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.
Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.