Eisenhower High School Invitational
2021 — Goddard, KS/US
Novice Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideTech>Truth
Make the round chaotic and fun, read bold(not controversial) things. If you make the round fun to watch your chances of winning probably go up. Psychological bias goes crazy
Speed is fine, I prefer email chains: 23Chayden@gmail.com
Procedurals: I'm not gonna watch for you to slip up when it comes to ev violations. If it happens tell me if you want the round to continue or not. With other procedurals, if you're a bad person and get called out on it have fun facing the consequences of your own actions.
T: give me voters and actually clash with interps and this debate will be fine. Clash looks like more than reading a counter interp.
DA: any DA is fine. impact calc is needed. Debate these how you wanna debate these. I think kicking parts of DA's and turning them into smthn else is always fun to watch.
CP: Beyond the basics of CP things theory is fine and I'm open to seeing more of it. I think it'll be hard to convince me that condo is just flat out bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be yk? Just let them read their 2 off. This changes per round, have a good interp and I'll vote on it
K's: Read what you want I'll follow along. I'll try my best to understand the thesis of your k and will probably read some of your ev. I know cap and generic K's but also am familiar with Deleuze, Baud, Heidegger, Bataille, and Nietzsche's ideas. I've seen exactly 1 performance K round and thought it was cool. Kaffs are cool too.
Theory: Have an impact and extend it pls. I know the community has accepted norms and stuff for what's abusive, but I never see warranted analysis of why these things are important in round. You can be as abusive as you can get away with on theory
do pre round disclosure btw? idk why ppl don't. Good disclosure practice means good debate. If there's issues with disclosure and they read it there's a significantly large chance you're not winning the round
Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.
Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.
Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.
Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.
Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.
David Freeland
No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:
Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.
Debate-specific paradigm:
Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.
-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.
-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.
-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.
-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.
-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.
-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.
-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.
-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.
-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.
-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.
My name is Bennett, I'm a junior at WSU majoring in French and playing varsity esports. I did debate and forensics all four years of High school and currently I'm an assistant debate/forensics coach for Andover High school in Kansas. some of the major things I'll be looking for are as follows:
Evidence: Evidence is extremely important to me, not just making sure you handle extensions and such properly, but the contents of the card itself. If a team is running a piece of evidence that contains statements that could be harmful to their case, or is entirely misrepresented in how it's cut I expect the other team to catch it and call them on it. Evidence weighing is also very important - if both teams are making directly conflicting statements with cards to back them up, you need to take the time to explain why I should be preferring your evidence over your opponents, otherwise I have to figure it out for myself; and that doesn't reflect well on either team.
T: I am more than willing to vote on T (I'm from Kansas it's like half the debates there) but if your expecting me to vote on it, I'm expecting you to go all in on it. Half hearted T arguments in the 2nr aren't going to get my ballot - the voters of T relies on convincing the judge that the round is essentially unfair, either through being un-educational, the aff being abusive, etc. But if you are going to claim the inability to argue against an affirmative case, and then continue to argue against said case for the rest of your speech, then you are just disproving your own argument.
Cp's and K's: I feel that cp's and k's are an incredibly important part of policy debate, and honestly think that when a neg team's strat doesn't contain at least some semblance of one or the other they are putting themselves at a major disadvantage. Neg defaults to defending the status quo, and I often find that many neg teams fall into the trap of proving that the aff's team won't do everything they say, and yet have provided no better alternative solution to the issues presented, nor proven that the world would be way worse off with the plan than without. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on neg without a k or a cp at all, no debate is decided before it's over and there are and endless number of strats that are viable on neg and if you can prove that the status quo is currently better than a world with the aff plan then you've done your job and will get my ballot. With that being said, you can drive from Kansas to Florida in 22 hours over the course of two days or you could fly there in 4. Thankfully, running a cp costs a lot less than a flight does but you get the point.
Spreading: I'm fine with any speed you want to go, if you need to go slow for other judges or because you aren't comfortable spreading, that WILL NOT AFFECT MY DECISION. spreading is a great skill and can let you accomplish a lot more in the short time you have, but it is not a necessity. do not feel like you have to push yourself to read faster than you're comfortable - having a clear, concise, and confident voice reading/speaking at a normal pace will always be better than trying to push yourself to far. With all of that being said, if youdo feel comfortable spreading then by all means feel free to do so at your discretion in round!
ABOVE ALL: I will not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, or homophobia; such remarks will immediately result in a ballot for the other team as well as notifying coaches. Also, please just be generally respectful to each other, remember that taking control of and handling cx is important - but there is a fine line between controlling cx well and being straight up rude.
My email for email chains: harrisbjg@outlook.com
My email for EC: harrisbjg@outlook.com
-top-
tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions
put me on the email chain: d3lett@gmail.com
call me dom and use they/them pronouns
wichita state university: 2018-now
coach at maize high school
-o/v-
certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants
clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar
i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier
insert graph joke here
-fw-
i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects
for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated
for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence
-t-
many of my preferences for fw apply here
reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling
-disad/case-
i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded
-cp-
i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve
-k-
it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan
-soft left affs-
the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter
-theory-
actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated
condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff
-other thoughts-
misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly
cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks
inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence
new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity
Hi!
I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR)
Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU.
Yes, add me to the email chain, my email is gracemcmanus22@gmail.com
I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round.
Framework- Usually debates inevitably come down to competing models of debate. You need to be able to explain why your model of debate is best. I will vote for the framework that has the best impacts(obviously but just making sure I put it out there) I have voted for education before (with fairness as an IL) but I am comfortable voting for literally anything.
K- I am super comfortable with K's, just make sure you are able to explain the alt well. Explain the role of the ballot and how the alt is able to function when I vote for a K, you know... the usual K things. I won't do the work for you when it comes to these types of arguments.
Theory- I love theory, but make sure you execute it properly. Not much else to say here, but if you have questions you can definitely ask me before the round begins.
T- I have voted for T in the past. I expect their to be competing interps when T is presented. I'm also cool if you read no interp and just impact turn T. Do whatever you want I will flow.
I have a lot of opinions on a lot of different arguments, but I will always defer to what is said in the round. I will vote for anything, my paradigm is only a suggestion of what I like to vote for. Just make the best arguments in the round and you will win the debate.
Above all be nice to one another. That doesn't mean you can't be assertive just don't be mean, it's pretty simple. If you have any questions, just email me.
I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. I am fine with speed if you are very clear. Ks are fine, but you better make it relevant somehow. Otherwise, policy maker is my default.
If you run T, make it good. It is everything in a round and yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it.
Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know your arg has alt causes and I can't ignore that. Counterplans can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.
Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations, as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.
Lastly, as a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.).
I was a high school debater and current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience, and I am always up to date on current topics. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans.
I am a games player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book. Victory at all costs is my motto when it comes to debate.
I love aggressive rounds. Every argument is on the table as long as you can defend it.
I would prefer to see your speeches in some way to judge the flow. I would like to have a roadmap if you want me to consider it in the best possible way.
Email: jogle@goddardusd.com
Speed: Moderate
Resolution of substantive issues is more important that communication skills
Tabula Rasa
Counterplans acceptable if justified and consistent with other elements of the negative approach
Topicality is fairly important
I debated for 4 years at Eisenhower High School (KS) at several levels, captained the team, and founded the school NSDA chapter, serving as president for 2 years. I'm definitely not very good, but I do have a personal investment in the sport.
I will only flow cards that are signposted and tagged CLEARLY. Spreading is discouraged (I ran a lot of FW against spreading), but it is a part of the sport, so just make sure I know what to write down. Speaking points are a separate part of the ballot for a reason; better arguments win the ballot and better speaking wins the points. Extensions are important, but if both teams drop a line I will default to having the most recent argument win the flow.
I am typically tabula rasa but default to stock issues with priority on T (my favorite argument when I was a novice) and S (a huge deal) if not given FW. I have limited experience with high theory (i.e. a couple dozen rounds junior year at KSHSAA 5/6A State and a big part of my senior year) but it will earn you bonus points because I think it's fun. If you're gonna run a K it has to be relevant and GOOD (there's a couple Ks I ran and ran against that were really cool, but most are just annoying). I tend to be be a bit biased against the Ks; prove to me it's worth my time. Any other arguments are alright especially if you can give a convincing reason why (I once read 7 CPs as Aff).
I don't like boring debates that are just case files argued the same way I've heard a thousand times. That being said, I have not debated this topic and my only experience is reading through the case lists, so you should try to make the round one that I will remember.
Most of all: make the round fun! Do something silly (with proper justification) and try to leave the round knowing more than when you came in!
I will try to write good and well-structured ballots, but if you want additional comments you can just ask me after the round or tournament. If you want any extra clarification on my paradigm, you can just ask before the round and I'll answer once both teams are present.
As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!