Primary Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Secondary Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

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.

As a judge I focus on communicative skills more than the resolution issues.

Skill emphasis is what I judge the most on.

As far as your speed, as long as you can be understood and are fluent speed isn't an issue.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable.

Topicality is rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I prefer specific real world arguments.

Open to all kinds of arguments as long as there are sources and links. Make your logical reasoning solid. Address T when warranted but don't waste the whole round on it. Other stock issues are just as important.

K's okay

CP's okay

Generic DA's need links

Make speed clear with signposts

Let´s all just have a good time :0

Hello, I'm Nathan, a high school senior at Wichita East High School.

This is my fourth year debating-- I don't compete at the varsity level; instead, I compete at the KDC/Open level, which means I'm generally comfortable with any argument you're running as long as you are able to explain the argument well. The only argument I'm not completely comfortable is K's--I'm open to hearing K's but you're most likely not going to win on that argument.

From the standard paradigm sheet:

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

- Policy Maker/Tabula Rasa/Flow. Default to Policy Maker (expect impact calculus).

- Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated -- very rapid speed discouraged. Speed if you can, don't if you can't.

- Counterplans are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

- Topicality is fairly important -- roughly on par with other major issues in the round. I expect standards/voters from both sides, must pull to rebuttals.

- I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable. Prefer specific links.

- I find kritiks general acceptable. Prefer specific links.

General Notes:

- I prefer off-case to on-case, and I generally don't care about stock issues. Since Topicality is flowed off-case, it serves as a prerequisite to on-case debate. Solvency is the only on-case argument that will be used to evaluate the 1AC against any off-case such as disadvantages/CPs/Ks.

- I fully support the use of CP's and K's, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

Competed in Forensics in the early aughts (IX, Congress, and the occasional Poetry)

Mostly just have fun :)

(Yeah, I know, everyone says that...)

Respect for your opponents and the activity is most important.

I think it's critical to stay organized during the round and make it clear when you end/begin talking about a new or the next argument. Tell me where whatever you're talking about goes on the flow.

As long as you are clear and can explain your arguments thoroughly, I don't have any preferences as to what you run.

Not a big fan of spreading.

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

Lawrence Free State HS '19 American University '23

13hillz13@gmail.com

--4 years of DCI/TOC circuit, 2A/1N, double 2's senior yr

--Most experienced with policy v policy & policy v k

--I generally don't have very strong beliefs about what can or cannot happen in a debate, especially pertaining to typical policy arguments. When it comes to clash of civ, I lean slightly neg on T-USFG but don't find procedural fairness to be the most compelling neg impact. I'm more inclined to vote aff if you commit to specific impact turns and robust justifications for your vision of the topic versus general criticism of the state. Negs have a TVA

--The K: Go for it but my knowledge is limited and you should slow down on framework. You risk losing me on anything more complex then setcol and still then I'm gonna be behind

--What matters most to me is impact calculus. The last rebuttals should basically be writing my ballot. Comparative analysis of how arguments interact and line by line are must-haves.

--My threshold for answering dumb theory arguments or K tricks is low but you do need to answer it. I think condo is good but could vote otherwise

--Affs seem to underutilize their case. As a former 2A, I like aff outweighs/turns arguments, especially the innovative ones, but just saying "aff o/w and turns case" without explaining is lame. 2Ns should make it a clear point in the 2NR if there's a low risk of the aff.

--Speed is great but don't lose clarity.

--Tech > truth but truthful arguments are more compelling.

--I have a low threshold for dropping you/bad speaks for excessive rudeness or being problematic- there's obvi a difference between this and confidence or jokes but don't cross the line. Additionally, you should be giving needed content warnings.

--Interrupting your partner is unbecoming.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

I am generally a chill judge. Its been a few years since I did speech and debate, but I can pick out details.

I am more relaxed with debate than I am with forensics.

In terms of debate, I'm more like any other "Stock issues" judge. It's plain and simple: You lose if you don't have a stock issue and if the negative points that out, you're done. When it comes to delivery, please do not yell over each other. I understand that in CX, there is a clash with the person asking the questions wanting information, and the person answering wanting to waste the time of the CXer. But please, don't get rude.

If you attack the person instead of the arguments and material, you automatically lose.

Debate in this setting is not a moral or philosophical argument. It is 100% information based. It is also for this reason that I hate kritiks. Please don't use them.

In terms of forensics, I used to do speeches. My primaries were Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative (7). I have some experience with HSA and Poetry. I judge based on content and delivery. Each event is different.

Content: (Extemp) Do you have content that is fleshed out, able to describe a sequence of events that led to the question and are you able to indicate future consequences with significant detail? - (Impromptu) Do you have at least one concrete and one abstract point? Does your concrete point have numbers or some reference to a definition? If your abstract point impactful? - (Informative) Do you have sources in all of your points?

Delivery: Do you own the room (poise)? Move with your points? Enunciation on point? How much are you using your hands? Are you using repetitive phrases as filler? How animated are you with your points?

When you walk in the room, please don't try and make conversation with the judge. As much as I may like to talk, this is a professional performance time, and trying to start a casual discussion with me isn't very professional.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

Policy/lay focus. Be civil and respectful. Need solvency and plan emphasis. T is okay but not a focus. Please no nuke war DAs. Prefer a deliberate, logical, and easily paced communication style over a spread or speed style.

4 years H.S. debate, college forensics All American (2013)

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. :)

I have judged HS debate here in Kansas for the last 3 years. I also debated for one year in college.

I don't mind a fast debate, as I am a fast talker, but don't go at breakneck speed. Remember, I haven't heard your argument before.

I don't plan to time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

I am very well-read, open-minded, heavily involved in politics, and graduated at the top of all my classes. I have both an undergraduate and a master's degree and have done doctoral level work.

Judging Style: I am a public speaker for a living, so I tend to make many remarks on your ability to annunciate and speak clearly with confidence. I put a high value on being respectful to your opponents and I watch your body language. But I don't take well to just charisma with no substance. Be a good speaker AND make a compelling and smart/logical argument.

Arguments:

I'm generally most interested in hearing solvency and impact (particularly in this year's topic). Disadvantages are also particularly important to me and I want to see good clash!

Careful with topicality arguments- I don't like when they dissolve into nit picky arguments. Make it a silver bullet (i.e. if it's made it impossible to rebut) - otherwise, don't argue topicality.

Make clear, organized and compelling arguments as to why you should win. It's that simple - but in my experience, not all competitors get that.

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).

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

Former HS debater.

No college debate experience.

Have judged 1 virtual tournament on current topic.

Topicality arguments seldom win me over, unless they are blatant violations.

Disadvantages are fine, but please provide a very clear link.

Counterplans are fine, but please don't "throw something on the wall to see if it sticks."

As of 04/27/2024, I have yet to judge any rounds on this particular topic. That having been said, I generally operate under the assumption that you, as debaters, will propose the political and philosophical foundations for the round during your first constructive speeches. I am open to most ideas, taking into account both context and decency. In other words, do not read something inherently abrasive, discriminatory, or flagrant in order to take a stance off the beaten path, or worse, in an attempt to simply win the round. I expect cordial cross-examinations and a general level of kindness throughout the debate. If any of the debaters in the round wish to claim some form of abuse committed by the other team, please structure your abuse arguments so that I can evaluate them accordingly within the context of the debate. I coached policy debate for almost three years, and I was a policy-debater for four. I am comfortable with most speeds, and I greatly appreciate a copy of speeches in-round. With respect to my ideas on debate, as I mentioned, I am fairly open-minded. I am sympathetic to creative arguments designed to fulfill the topic's spirit in the most charitable way possible, but I will vote on flow for major issues, such as but not limited to: Topicality, Solvency, Ks, and CP/DAs. Please, if you have any specific questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round begins, and I would be happy to answer.

I've read the rules. I follow the rules. Sometimes I'll reference the rules, and I may even quote them on ballots from time to time.

As judges, it's not our job to make or "interpret" rules, yet as I browse the paradigms of other judges, many would seem to disagree. That doesn't bode well for any hopes of consistency or outcome integrity at the highest levels of our sport.

My ballots reflect my evaluation of the competition within the context of the parameters prescribed by the rules, e.g. you can do X or win/lose due to Y. They are not weighted towards any individual agenda or personal preference.

I have 3 years of experience in high school speech and debate, including policy debate, LD, and World Schools. I have judged on and off over the last 5 years, including KDC, DCI, and Kansas state tournaments, but the majority of my experience comes from traditional circuit judging. I am currently a Political Science major and an assistant coach for Hayden High School Speech and Debate.

I would classify myself to be a stock issues flow judge. There is some leniency to this, but for the most part I am looking for a team to win on paper. This means that you can only win on arguments that are explicitly introduced during speech time and carried throughout the round. That being said, I have no issues with anything that you choose to run, no matter how complex or absurd. The more creative and thoughtful, the better.

I am very comfortable with Ts, CPs, and Disads and highly recommend that you read them if they have any merit. T is obviously a voting issue and should be prioritized in all applicable speeches. I have absolutely no bias against Ks, but I will admit that I have limited experience with them. That being said, absolutely go for them as long as you have good alt solvency.

If your going to weigh value judgment heavily in a round I would prefer if you had a theoretical shell to back it up. I am also a stickler for framing and want your impact calc to be concrete and warranted.

I don't have a problem with spreading, as long as you are intelligible and not purposefully obstructing productive debate.

Most importantly, I will not tolerate any disrespect towards the other team.

Thanks and good luck!

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

Hello!

I am a previous debater from Louisburg High School. I went to the KSHSAA debate tournament in 2014 and 2015.

I'd like to say that I'm a policymaker mixed with stock issues. I believe all stock issues are a must for the affirmative, and I also value the best proved possible policy.

If you tell me to judge in a different paradigm, I will do so, but if not I default to Policy/Stock issues.

I go to each round with an open mind, politics do not sway my vote. I don't judge with my personal beliefs.

PLEASE follow the flow. If an argument is dropped, and puts a hole in the affirmative, I will vote Negative. I will flow the entire debate round. I don't care what kind of arguments are ran.

Aff- if neg drops an argument, you don't have to answer it. It wastes time and drives me nuts.

Make sure both teams pull the arguments they are keeping throughout the round (besides the aff case of course).

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I prefer actual communication and good speaking skills over rapid delivery. While I'm not an expert in K debate, I do understand the use of evidence, analysis, and snark. I would suggest that you only use the first two. While you may tell me how I "must vote," this technique annoys me and detracts from your argument. Just be a great communicator.

Competitive Experience:

                 2004-2005 Hutchinson Community College = AFA-NIET / JV NPDA/ Novice NFA-LD

                 2005-2006 University of Kansas = JV NDT/CEDA (Partners; Chris Thomas).

                 2006-2009 Sterling College = AFA-NIET/ NPTE-NPDA/ NFA-LD

Coaching Experience:

                 2009-2011 Sterling College = NPTE/ AFA-NIET

                 2011-Present Barton Community College = NPDA/ NFA-LD / NFA-IE

Summation: My experience in collegiate policy debate is limited to NFA-LD and sparce rounds of policy in NPTE style. In light of my resume, your first question is probably, "Dear Heavenly father... Does he know what is going down?" My answer, which probably isn't God's is "Yes." Your speed is not going to phase me, I'll manage. Your argumentation is not going to phase me, I'm a Parli debater... we tend to make things up without any warranted information at all. Holistically my approach to a debate round is simple; Be courteous, be thorough, be organized and be persuasive. Whether you do that speaking at 500wpm or 75 is irrelevant. Whether you argue De-DEV or dump solvency-turns all day, doesn't matter; do the above and we'll at least be on the same page. Nothing kills me more than to see four people with egos trying to convince me they deserve active listening...

Specifics:

1. Procedural Argumentation:

          I will never vote on a procedural argument unless abuse is proven in the round. End of story. Do not expect me to buy your T/Spec argument if you're going for on-case and the procedural in the 2NR. Suck it up and make a decision post the 1NR. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN MY BALLOT. It means you're confident in your final minute strat, which I respect. Second, I expect to hear abuse argumentation cross-applied to the various standards you expect to pick up in the 2NR. I do not want to hear "We proved abuse, they no linked on the double bind, vote Neg." I will quit flowing. Why? Because you're not even trying to express the internal connection between the standard debate and the end-line voter, you're tagging in hopes I make the argument for you on the flow, which I can't do.  

2. Counter-Plan:

        1) Framework/Theory: I'm all game for debate about debate. Personally I believe it's what influences competitive progress in this activity. This in mind, I believe PICs are 100% valid and I'll easily vote for one without thinking twice, unless you prove to me that you've been uniquely abused as a result of the PIC. Bear in mind that I also require PIC specific solvency that includes the PIC ground and figure in the evidence. (EX: Text = US should do Y... PIC = EU should do Y: Solvency for the PIC = EU can do Y not "Y is awesome" (Card one) alongside "EU is awesome." It seems trivial but I think we've all been surprised at the warrants inside solvency cards at some point. If it isn't clear by now, I expect a justification for the CP in the FW.

        2) CONDO/DIS/UNCON - For some reason this always seems to be an issue in judging paradigms. I don't believe conditional status is ever bad, I believe it's a unique opportunity to test the text. Should you go Dispo, I only ask that you justify and outline your framework in a way that the AFF is crystal clear as to their objective in handling the CP. UNCON, well... now we know where the 2NR time allocation is going to be.

        3) PERM: Should have text and solvency... right? I'll read those cards, promise.

3. K

       1. Framework is paramount. I need to understand holistically why your interpretation of the link ground justifies your use of the Kritik. Honestly, I lean AFF in a theory debate pertaining to critical frames. I want to say sorry... but I won't.

        2. ALT/ALT (S): If your perspective of capitalism is "do nothing" then expect me to embrace that analysis like a warm blanket on the tundra. I will do absolutely nothing like...flow. The only exception to this rule is if you have some unholy awesome analysis as to why rejecting a human beings' hard attempt to solve a problem is the utopian solution to all life's inadequacies (Nihilism). In that case I expect to hear the AFF prove to me why life is so darn important. In the end I will expect solvency to the Alternative and Permuatation.

        3. K-Culture: Please keep in mind... I am a middle-class, Christian, Hetero-Sexual, anglo-saxon male. I'm probably not enthused about being told that my very existence is the pinnacle of hate and intolerance. I will definitely listen to your argument... but I'd really enjoy an alternative that doesn't ultimately argue that I should hide in a corner and write apology letters all day. Your alternative should be inclusive to all cultures and ideologies seeking to mediate between frames. Golden rule.

4. Narrative/Performance AFF/NEG:

      1. Why not? My only request is that you distinguish between your in round obligations and the opposing team. Reading a poem and saying "let's talk" isn't a debate. There are some things that you don't have to try once to know they're probably not effective. Point blank, I'll listen but what I'm looking for is clash with results. I want to know that at the end of the round your performative will influence real world results. How you convince me of that is entirely up to you. (See #3 Above).

5. General Goodness:

          I really like impact/risk calculus in the 2NR and 2AR. It makes my life a whole lot easier. My rule for juding is as follows: If you didn't pull it across, analyze it, weigh it and tell me how to evaluate it overall in the final speech... I probably don't care. This will be my line when you start agressively arguing with me... "I don't care." Please don't let it come to that level of ignorance. I will respect you if you want to talk about why I made my decision the way I did. I will even take your advice on how to judge subsequent rounds... if you justify your position. I will NOT sit there while you yell at me, I will not entertain your poor attitude and above all else I will not attempt to persuade you that I'm right and your wrong. Your intellect will take you to great peaks, but your character will keep you atop them.

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.

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 judge on stock issues: Topicality, Solvency, Inherency, Significance, and Disadvantages.

Make sure you summarize your cards and points. Roadmaps, signposts, too. If you don't know what that is, feel free to ask me.

I like counterplans and I love kritiks, but only if you lay it out for me. Speedreading is fine, but help my flow out!

I generally ignore cross-ex (I personally believe that's just for your clarification, not for displaying superiority), but do whatever.

Please follow KSHAA rules: face me when you're speaking or doing cross-examination, no "open" cross-ex, no "splitting the negative block." "No new in the 2" isn't a rule, either.

Finally, please remember that prep time was increased in order to accommodate the technology. Prep time doesn't stop until you begin speaking.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.

Lawrence Free State ‘19

University of Iowa ‘23

TL:DR--you do you, just tell me what to care about and why

You can refer to me w any pronouns

Largest influence is Sean Kennedy if you care about that

Put me on the email chain: spenceryostwolff@gmail.com

Please trigger warn and don't be condescending to your opponents

- Flex 2N--went about 50/50 for critical and policy based arguments (familiar with all the basic k stuff, settler colonialism, queer pessimism/futurity arguments, assemblage identity stuff, afro-pessimism, haptic touch, necropolitics, and virilio). I enjoy all kinds of arguments delivered in all styles and will listen to anything. I also rlly like hearing things I haven't heard before!

- Evidence quality > quantity. Please do evidence comparison. Coherent highlighting is good.

A handful of argument specific thoughts and subtle biases I have--

T/FW/Theory

- FW debates--why does your offense matter more than theirs? tell me :)) I see too many of these debates that lack impact comparison. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to better research/argument refinement rather than its own impact, but that shifts based on the debate/explanation of the terminal impact.

- Like FW, T debates need, and often lack, comparison between impacts or top level framing arguments. Do limits outweigh precision? Do limits turn ground? Is aff or neg flexibility more important given the research burdens on this topic? Idk unless you tell me.

- I default to competing interps--theory debates need a clear interpretation, not just "x thing is bad" or "x thing is good." Reasonability is usually deployed as defense to limits arguments, not a model for how I should evaluate the round

- Condo can be a winning 2AR--I default to viewing it through an offense-defense lens like everything else--it is possible to win that even one conditional advocacy is a reason to reject the team--I'll vote on it. When evaluating other theory arguments I will lean heavily toward rejecting the argument not the team (exception is disclosure/mis-disclosure).

Policy Stuff

- I often find that the difference in comparative risk of internal link chains between an advantage and a dissad is larger/more important than the difference in the size of the terminal impact (unless its an existential dissad versus a structural violence advantage). This is because most impacts people read are very large and universally bad, but I often find one internal link chain may carry significantly more risk of happening than the other due to evidence quality, defensive arguments, etc. 

- Turns case arguments tend to be more persuasive the earlier in the internal link chain they are triggered--"link alone turns the aff" is much better than "nuke war causes aff impact to happen for obvious reason." Turns case args are more effective when paired with a timeframe distinction (dissad makes aff impact inevitable before aff can access it).

- I default to thinking judge kick is fine unless the aff tells me I shouldn't. Those arguments should start before the 2AR

- Not a fan of new 2NC counterplans/amended counterplan texts/new planks. I kind of think this is cheating and lazy. The 1AR is hard enough and the negative team should have some obligation to stick to the strategy they laid out in the 1NC to avoid shallow debates. 

K debates

- I am unlikely to adopt totalizing frames for framework--"only plan focus matters" or "no evaluating the aff" will probably not be persuasive unless one team is v far ahead

- HOWEVER, with Ks which dispute the reading/performance of the aff it does not make sense to try to weigh those discursive ramifications against some hypothetical government policy. The aff probably has to first justify why the introduction of the 1AC was good. Winning that I shouldn't care about what you said/did in the 1AC will be an uphill battle for me. In a discursive activity I think it makes sense to care about what people say.

- The more specific the links are to the aff's mechanism or performance, the more compelling they are against the permutation. The links should function as specific reasons why inclusion of the aff in the world of the alternative is bad or impossible, which in my view requires some dispute with the aff in particular rather than the state in general. 

- In KvK rounds, link/impact framing often ends up centering my decision. I think affs should probably get a permutation, but I need a concrete idea of what the aff is/does in order to understand how it is not mutually exclusive with the negative's strategy.

- I also think presumption is viable against many planless affs. The question of "what do you do though?" is kind of a cliche at this point, but something that matters a lot for the round. I prefer affs to have a method or advocacy that I can explain in a substantive way in the RFD, especially if the debate comes down to a permutation or link question. If your aff does nothing, I would suggest that you pretend like it does something.

Some aesthetic preferences

- Don't do long overviews--I prefer overviews to consist of impact framing and turns case arguments, everything else can happen during line by line.

- Read re-highlightings, don't just insert them 

- Less reliance on blocks usually means higher speaks

- Counterplans with lit not grounded in the topic area are :((

- Like p much everyone else, I prefer fewer, more well developed arguments than the 11-off-cannon-of-garbage. I also enjoy strategies being effectively tailored to the aff you're debating--1NCs that are designed with 1) arguments specific to the aff and 2) particular block strategies based on arguments you pigeon hole the 2AC into making will be rewarded with higher speaks. I like that a lot more than reading the same 3 process counterplans and 4 dissads in every round and then going for whatever they undercover.

Policy Debate:

I am certified and currently teach/coach policy debate and have for the past 5 years. I participated in speech events when I was in school and love nerding out over good speeches and logic.

Speed:

Speaking fast just to get your evidence in is not high quality debate, but this is my opinion. Speaking well, flowing, and with confidence will get you much farther.

Flex Prep

No.

Arguments

Stock issues should all be addressed and upheld.

Each negative position tests the validity of the affirmative. Don’t drop an argument. Even if you feel like you answered it before, always answer it in the ending AR.

Topicality: Don’t rely on it. Justify the impact of topicality

Your argument doesn’t directly influence your speaker points - This is based on how well you convey your augment and confidence in speech.

Theory: While theory is fine, I would much rather see a debate on logic and advantages of policy.

CP: Fine, but still must prove why CP and Aff plan cannot coexist and why your plan has am adv over neg and how.

I do not take points off for speed; however, I do take points off for a lack of clarity. A speech impediment or obvious pre-existing condition will also not count against a debater.

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.