I am a mom of 2 debaters. This is my 5th year of judging debate. I prefer to understand the plan and evidence. Speaking too fast or stumbling over words will decrease the likelihood of me being able to fully understand your position.

25 years head debate coach; 4 yrs Policy/Congress/IE competitor + 1 yr NDT/CEDA

Policy: Default to standard impact calculus; ideal round would involve a single topical policy proposal from the aff vs. a single alternative policy proposal from the neg. if you want me evaluating non-plan arguments I need to be given a well-explained reason why that's a better use of my ballot than the endorsement of a good policy option. Most of the time tech > truth. If you make the round a toxic environment for me or for your opponents I may intervene to vote against you. That is NOT an invitation for you to complain in your speeches about your opponents' behavior. It is a warning that I don't like bullies, blowhards, and people who treat the activity as an arena in which to Get Their Alpha On, or as a stick with which to clobber their cultural/political outgroup of choice. I am capable of speed up to the level of a moderate KS varsity round or slow circuit round; I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

LD: I'm not what you'd call prog. The wording of the resolution, and specifically the evaluative term, dictates my judging philosophy--basically, you win by engaging the resolution as written and proving your side is true. Many recent LD topics have been phrased as straight-up policy topics--if you can convince me that the resolution you're debating is one of those, then the full range of policy strategies become legit. For more traditionally worded resolutions, I am far more likely to be persuaded by whole-res justifications as opposed to situational ones. If you win the V/C debate, all aff and neg impacts are filtered through your V/C, so spending time there can be strategically useful. I'm persuadable on util good/bad, and generally persuadable on theory, provided your "theory" argument doesn't render the resolution undebatable or absurd. I have not yet heard a LD round that was too fast for me, but bear in mind I am a middle-aged man who judges at the regional level; I am not at the cutting edge of this activity. I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

Congress: redundant debate is bad. Direct responses to preceding speakers are good. Unkindness to other competitors is very very bad indeed. Skilled POs tend to place very high in my rankings.

Please add me to the email chain: sgoddardoe@olatheschools.org

I have coached for a few years and am always learning. Don't assume I know anything but I will listen to and entertain almost everything.

I debated for 3 years in high school and 1 year in college and have been a coach for 4 years.

I almost always am a policymaker with some exceptions when it comes to kritiks.

I prefer any impact other than nuclear war. I'll listen to nuclear war impacts on DAs, and I've voted for them but I have to be able to see a clear connection on why the voting for the aff would cause a war, the links need to be very strong. As a policymaker I want to be able to evaluate how the plan would hypothetically affect people which is why I tend to prefer smaller magnitude impacts that let me weigh the benefits of the aff with the potential harm to individuals. Also on DAs, I highly value uniqueness. If you're going to run a generic link, at the very least have super recent evidence. Same goes for specific links as well; recency will almost never hurt you, but old evidence will.

As for topicality, I don't mind it and have voted on it before but to win on T alone with me you'd have to do significant work on the voters. I will not vote on T because the neg thinks the aff might be abusive, you have to be committed to this strategy all the way to persuade me to move away from a policymaker framework to examine topicality.

I don't enjoy counterplans but I'm not opposed to them. If you think that a CP is your best strategy in that round then by all means go for it, just know that I almost always will think that there are better arguments to have made. On the aff, I don't want you to read every perm in the book. Do some solid work on theory and I will likely buy it.

Kritiks are important and have some place in debate. That said I don't want to hear a K every round, but I am familiar with most literature and as I said above value arguments that allow me to weigh the aff with the impacts on individual people. The role of the ballot is very important to me, along with being able to do the analysis on your own without just reading a block at me. You will need to do a significant amount of work to get to move me from policymaking to kritiks, however if you think this is your best strategy I trust your judgement, just show me it is your strongest argument.

As for the aff, I don't like K affs, and I prefer a lot of advantages (scenarios). I believe affs should read a plan text. Don't get too overwhelmed by the neg and forget about your case. Far too frequently I see affs that have totally lost track of their advantages by the 1AR. I will not weigh your advantages against the neg if you left them untouched after the 1AC.

In general, I'm not picky on your speed, I'll flow the round so please be very clear on what arguments you are making and where on the flow you want them. I will flow however you want as long as you tell me what argument/card goes where. I like a strong impact calc throughout the round. Anyone can read cards, I value the analysis of if the proposed policy is good or bad and why. There's more to that than just reading the evidence.

If you have questions about specific arguments or want more information about something you can ask me before the round or email me at lglingenfelter@gmail.com

I'm currently a Third Year law student. I debated for four years in high school. Did KDC and DCI but did Oration for national tournaments. I'm on my fourth year coaching for Blue Valley.

I'm not picky on the arguments you run I'll vote on whatever you win on the flow.

In electronic debate, I prefer people to be as efficient in transitions as possible to account for technical difficulties and so I usually count prep until teams have pressed send on their documents in exchanging speeches.

(LD Paradigm below Policy paradigm)

I'm a pretty traditional judge.

I am willing to be persuaded based upon quality of argument/evidence. I do not give wins to quantity of evidence over quality of evidence.

There are no arguments to which I am automatically opposed---save for 2 caveats

1-I don't like fiat carried to Harry Potter/"magical" levels. There has to be some solid grounding in reality for me. Taken too far it gets into "how many angels can dance in the head of a pin?" territory. Most of the topics deal with serious issues that have serious real-world ramifications and they deserve being treated with due seriousness.

2-Having personally spent years arguing that literally nearly everything leads to nuclear war/global death/genocide/extinction etc. etc. , I will not flow said augments. I will NOT-I Repeat WILL NOT punish anyone for making them, as I said, I have done so myself. I simply will not flow such arguments.

Again, quality of argument matters more to me than quantity.

I'm ok with whatever speed debaters want to use. But if you really can out-speed my flow---well, if I can't flow it, then it makes it hard for you to win.

I am not a "blank slate" judge, I will not pretend that I don't know things.

I prefer clash on substantive points. I prefer dealing directly with the topic at hand. I often find highly technical "small ball" debates about debate itself to be unpersuasive.

I also greatly dislike it when debaters miss frame, take out of context or otherwise distort/spin/ etc. their evidence.

Any other question debaters might have, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am "Old School" when it comes to LD Debate.

Pretty straightforward when it comes to LD--and other styles of debate

The only thing of note would be a deep disappointment with people that attempt to make LD into something like Policy Debates "little brother" or Policy Debates "mini-me."

LD is its own style of debate--it has it own rules, structure, methodology, delivery etc. etc

It is no more appropriate to try and crush Policy Debate methods/arguments/terms/delivery into an LD round than it would be to try and pass off ones Poetry selection as an Extemp speech. You CAN force round pegs into square holes---if you pound hard enough----but it tends to mangle things pretty thoroughly, an unappealing result.

Spreading and cranking up the speed (in general) despite being currently in-fashion, in places, is not really appropriate in LD where Delivery counts. Nor consistent with its historical context and purpose.

Plus if everything is essentially/effectively Policy Debate then there is really no reason at all for any other formats/styles etc. of debate.

Different events require different approaches, methodologies, styles and delivery. Inability or refusal to adapt ones case and methodology to fit the event or the paradigm IMO leads to poor quality debate.

I am not a "blank slate" Judge and as such I will not pretend that I don't know things. Attempts to get things "past" ones opponent that are not factually or logically correct will be noted.

Sincerely sorry if that sounds harsh but being able to adapt ones case/methods to fit the event and judging paradigms is a crucial skill for any competitor--esp. a debater.