Hi! I'm Jacinta, and I'm a 4th year debater. I don't have a ton of "likes/dislikes" as far as my judging goes. I'm open to anything (K's, T, CP's, etc.) but I will say I'm very big on running things CORRECTLY. Example: If you run T, I need all 4 parts. If it's not ran correctly I will toss it and explain why I did so in your comments. I'm a Game Theorist. Nothing is too "absurd" for me if you can very adequately convey (with evidence) the substantiveness of the argument. I do not default to the Aff. I vote based on quality of arguments, whatever side they may be on.

Take everything written in your comments as constructive criticism! I'm not mean, but I can be blunt (as most debaters are.) Good luck! 

4th-year debater at Wichita East High

I’m rocking with K’s, T, CP’s, and DA’s

Roadmaps please

Please add me on the email chain

Extra speaks if you're chill

If you make a radiohead reference insta 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be polite and have fun!

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

I am a science educator for 28 years. While I didn't participate in debate in high school or college, my students often have to debate topics in my classroom. I have been judging debate for 3 years. Being a science educator, I need to have links between topics clearly analyzed. There needs to be a direct correlation between the evidence and your conclusion. I believe good communication is a must. Rapid delivery is needed but it cannot be at the expense of understanding. Topicality is very important but should not be the only counter argument. In most cases, it is very hard to prove something is not topical. Counterplans are acceptable, but need to show why they are better and more beneficial than the original plan. I need to be able to follow your line of thinking and have evidence to support your line.

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.