I’m a blank slate. Your round you tell me how to vote.

JUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.

Any debater may look at this sheet prior to beginning each debate round.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Mark Bergmann

City Fort Scott State KS

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes No

Number of years 0

2) Did you debate in college? Yes No

Number of years 0

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 2

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: National Qualifiers

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

B II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

C III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

B IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

B V. Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

B VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.

Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.

Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.

Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.

Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.

LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.

Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.

Be polite and have fun!

Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

acedwards00@ksu.edu

I default Policy Maker, but I’ll vote on whatever you tell me.

I'm also not the biggest fan of existential/nuke war/extinction impacts, largely because I don't believe they reflect reality. Focusing on more realistic impacts (war and economic decline for example) is how to win me over.

Also, if I can't tell exactly what your plan is mandating/doing by looking at your plan text and ONLY your plan text and the other team runs vagueness, the odds are not in your favor. That said, I don't really care about financial specification

Topicality: Only if the plan is obviously untopical under your definition and if it doesn't involve the word "substantial"

Generic DAs: Acceptable

Generic CPs: Acceptable, but if the CP is just "do the plan but add another different entity" it is wholly unacceptable

Speed Preference: No preference, but please speak clearly no matter what

Kritiks: Not Preferred, but acceptable with clear links

I did debate for one year in college, and competitive speech on the whole for 9 straight years. I did debate all throughout High School, state qualifying every year and nationally qualifying three times. In college, I was the district champion in impromptu speaking for District 3, and qualified for nationals every year I have done that as well. My final year of college forensics, I was a national semifinalist at AFA nationals in extemporaneous speech.

Background: Four years of high school policy debate in the mid-eighties. Active in local/state politics, particularly those policies pertaining to public education. Four years as assistant debate/forensics coach and 31 years teaching. I have been out of debate/forensics for two years.

Philosophy: Quality policy debate, please. Roadmaps and signposts should be provided and followed; line by lines are useful. Provide argumentation and clash. Use quality warrants that specifically link to opposing arguments; don't be afraid to use opponent's evidence against them. Re-reading the same evidence is redundant and may lose my vote. Back-up evidence is key-I don’t need to hear you repeat your thoughts or someone else’s-give me new information that proves your point! I will request plan text and evidence for clarification. Be respectful and civil to one another; failure to do so will guarantee lowest speaker rank. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Open CX? Tournament rules apply. That said, this is your debate round. Both teams must agree to open CX prior to round starting for it to occur.

Topicality: Must be specific and provable by neg. Any topicality argument should be well grounded and explained thoroughly. Trying to run topicality as a time suck is abusive to everyone sitting in the round. Please only do so if the aff plan is truly untopical or extra topical.

CPs: Your CP should be clearly exclusive of the aff plan. CPs need to be competitive and believable and provide clear net benefit. Aff: can perm and should!

DAs: Generic DAs are highly discouraged. Make sure you link specifically to the aff case and make your impact calc clear. Disadvantages should clearly link to the real world and to the case presented. Take the time to explain each DA that you present in your own words. Aff: need to turn the DA.

Power Tagging: This round is flowed. Warrants will be checked, so avoid this.

Analyticals: As long as the argument links to case and is articulate, then this is acceptable, however any analytical should follow presented evidence and be an extension thereof. Analyticals on their own, don’t stand with me.

Kritiks: This is a debate regarding policy; therefore there is no place for K’s.

Emotional Arguments/Impacts: Overused and unneeded. Stick with policy and likely impacts.

Speed: Fast conversational (AKA “moderate”) rate is preferred. You should speak at a rate and volume to be understood. When speaking, speak slowly, clearly and to me. If I can’t hear your argument, then I can’t understand it or vote for it. Remember to enunciate. If you read tags, but the warrants of the card are unintelligible or cut out due to time, then the information wasn’t presented and the argument doesn’t exist.

I debated at Free State High School for 3 years. I was runner up 6A state champion in policy my junior year. I did LD for 3 years as well.

I have not debated or listened to debates in 3 years, and I have no knowledge of the topic. Please don't go full speed on me, I can handle 75-80% speed. I'll tell you to slow down if you're going too fast for me.

Likes: well warranted arguments, good evidence, and good analysis.

Dislikes: overly aggressive cross-x, stealing prep, reading blocks in rebuttals, misogyny/racism/classism etc.

I don't have super strong ideological preferences, and I can be convinced of anything reasonable.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

email chain: li.cao.gw@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa

Background

4-year debater from Pittsburg graduated 2019. Currently assistant coach at Olathe South

Experience in high-flow rounds both as a debater and a judge

Don't care how evidence is shared, but I personally want speech docs

email: marlerleyton2@gmail.com

General Stuff

I will evaluate the round in whatever lens you tell me to, I'm very very open to most arguments. Only thing I will say to be careful of is that I will not do work on the flow for you, I expect you to tell me where to vote, why I'm voting, and what the ballot means when I sign it.

Tech vs Truth - I'm pretty middle ground on it, I find it hard to believe that tech outweighs truth completely and vice versa

If you want vote on cheating or anything like that, you need to give me a quality block and undeniable proof. Sending a picture in an email chain where I can barely see the whats happening because it is so blurry will not cut it at all. If you're accusing a team of doing something that should lose them the round then you are going to have an extremely high burden and you better not have done anything shady during the round as well.

No new in the 2 please

If you keep the flow clean there's a 90% chance that you'll get my ballot from that alone.

Specific Args

Ks - Open to all types of literature and args, I'm not as well-versed as I would like to be, but I do love the lit and spend time outside of the debate sphere studying it as well so I won't be completely lost. I'm very well-versed with Cp Ks, Set-Col, Imperialism, and some nihilism. Most other lit I'm comfortable with and will understand, you'll have to keep the flow clean and explicitly state where you want everything to go.

DAs - Pretty much every DA will fly, Trade-Off DAs will have a harder time finding my ballot I think there's a ton of thumpers on them and you'll have to give me a pretty specific chain here otherwise I'm probably going to err aff. Tix DAs are 100% acceptable and you can get my ballot a good chunk of the time, only thing I'll say on them is don't blow up some random super tiny piece of legislation it needs to be something that actually matters and can have an impact on the world around us. Outside of that I'll just evaluate it based what you explicitly state.

CPs - Open to all CPs, just be prepared to argue theory if you run 3 CPs with condo on all of them, severance CPs you'll have to do a ton of work on the flow with as well so just be smart and use them strategically rather than just as an arg you can throw out at any time.

T - Love T debates, I will judge them harshly though, I was a big T debater so if you aren't pulling through and debating your standards/voters then it'll be really hard to pick up my ballot

K Affs - For the most part the same opinion I have on Ks applies here, I like the lit, I find it interesting, and I'm always open to the arg as long as you can justify on the flow or you can win the framework debate

Theory - Need a good reason for it or you need to provide real quality argumentation or I will not vote on it

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

EMAIL CHAIN: katie.mcgaughey@macmillan.com

ABOUT ME: I did not participate in the activity in high school or college. However, I have judged several policy rounds and a handful of speech events in the last 6 years. I have judged everything from local Kansas City tournaments to NSDA Nationals in 2020, 2023, and again in 2024. I have a Bachelor's degree from University of Kansas in Exercise Science and in Psychology with an emphasis in Cross-Cultural Communication. Now, I work in Sales at Macmillan Learning, a textbook publisher. I am working on a Masters of Science in Data Analytics at Northwest Missouri State now.

APPROACH: 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. Anybody can read cards, good analysis, and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.

SPEED: I am somewhat comfortable with speed, but slowing down during taglines and authors is imperative because I flow on paper.

The best way to win my ballot is to be logically consistent, generate clash, and just make sense. It is more important to be right than to be the most clever. I want to see that you have a nuanced global knowledge of the topic, not just reading cards that were cut for you.

POLICY ARGUMENTS: These are the things that I will be the most comfortable evaluating. Case debate, DAs, and smart CPs that are all supported by quality evidence and analytics that reflect your knowledge of the topic will be rewarded. Generating clash through warrant comparison and setting up the end of the round through comparative impact calculus are critical for shaping my ballot. Probability and timeframe are the most important parts of impact calculus to me, and time spent explaining (or breaking down) internal link chains is never wasted.

KRITIKS, PERFORMANCE, & PROCEDURALS: These positions weren't really a part of my competitive career and I've had limited exposure as a judge. I'm willing to listen to them, but you should deploy them at your own risk. Don't assume that I know your literature base or am well-versed in the way that your offense interacts with theirs. Narrative explanation and easy-to-follow structure will be important for me to effectively interact with your arguments.

Please ask questions before the start of the round if anything is unclear.

I'm very unfamiliar with debate. But I've judged rounds before in previous years. I've also judged Speech events.

My son is a three year debater from Pittsburg. I can understand what some terms like "DA" or "CP" mean, but I might need a reminder. I prefer a much more Lay style and more traditional debate. Speak pretty and have good arguments. I don't vote just off of who won arguments, I also vote based off of how well you spoke.

Make sure to explain your arguments and go at a normal speed, and believe in what you say and you should be alright!

I have been in debate since 1988 either competing or coaching. I debated at the high school level and then in CEDA in college. I have been a high school debate coach for the last 25 years.

As far as a general paradigm, I would say that I am a policymaker that used to be tabula rasa. I still try to be as much a tab judge as I can, but with age and a distancing with particular divisions/circuits has made me default to a more of a policymaking paradigm.

So here are the highlights you are probably interested in.

Delivery: At one time, I was pretty quick, but my skills at following speed have decreased over the years. I'm generally fine with speed as long as you are clear.

Theory arguments: Used to be a huge fan of theory. Not so much any more. Definitely not a fan of the multiple worlds framework, but you're welcome to try and convince me otherwise.

Topicality: I know you're probably expecting me to say I hate T, but I actually am okay with it. That's not to say I'm a fan of it, but I'm not going to wholesale reject the position. I understand its place in debate as both a legit argument and as a strategic tool. All I ask is that you don't waste time running it.

K positions: Make sure you're explaining it to me. I coach in classification where kritiks and kritical affs are not really ran much. If you're going to go for it, make sure you explain it to me.

DA's: Fine with those. However, I do buy performative contradictions so be careful with what you run with them.

CP's: Traditional CP's are fine. If you're doing something like a PIC, I'm open to theory arguments from the Aff as to its legitimacy.

As for anything else, feel free to ask me in the room.

I debated for a little over 6 years, 4 in high school and 2 on the collegiate level. I would say that I am close to being a stock issues judge, but overall, I prioritize respect in the round. :)

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

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

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

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

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

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.comif you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School in Kansas. Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches andCEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching multiple cx teams at NSDA nationals and taking 1st or 2nd at State pretty much every year from 2011 to 2021.

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

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

Topicality is an acceptable argument

I do not like speed - keep a conversational pace

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

Good Luck

I debated NPTE/NPDA at William Jewell from 2015-2019.

I care about the way you execute and warrant your positions, not necessarily what you read. (I do believe that the best debates start with a topical affirmative. It can be topic-adjacent, or take a creative spin on the topic, but at least some reference to the topic is my preference). Your positions should informed, strategic, and clash with your opponent’s arguments. If you read a text, please make it clear to everyone and stick with the exact same words the entire round—I will hold you to the text that you read. Please do your best to impact out each argument that you make and state the frame in which I should evaluate round; if you don’t do this, I have to assume these things myself. If you read a competing advocacy explain why it is exclusive to the affirmative. At the end of the round, state how you would write an RFD for yourself. I don’t think I have any strange preferences that should change the way you would normally go about debating.

I enjoy high clash, smart debates and respect the amount of work everyone puts into their rounds. If you have any additional questions, please email me at huttley6@gmail.com. Good luck!

-Haley

4 years of debate in HS, 1 year in college

Topicality is A Priori

Speed is whatever

No generic arguments

CP/Ks are fine if they fit the neg strategy