Hello, I’m Tyler! If you make an email chain please include me, tylerdhs66@gmail.com, but lets be honest, SpeechDrop is better.

De Soto High School - '23

University of Arkansas - '27

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my judging preferences, please ask before the round as I will usually not answer them after we begin.

Policy Debate (Truth over Tech, in most cases... I'd say 75% Truth over 25% Tech)

Speed

Speed is fine... if your able to do it. Your arguments need to be clear. If a novice starts spreading, I will actually be mad. If your a novice, in the novice division, do not spread or use speed, please... please.. If your case is about accessibility and/or fairness, I would think VERYYY hard about if its very accessible or fair for you to speak at 400 wpm.

Conduct

I would appreciate if before the debate y'all introduced yourselves, and said "Hello" or something similar, so I can know who I will be judging for today. I believe disclosure is a nice thing to do, however, it is not required. I think it’s also a good idea to say hello to the other team as well simply because of manners. I will not tolerate rude teams and I absolutely will interrupt the round if things are getting out of hand. I will also vote teams down racist/homophobic/transphobic or otherwise hateful speech. Please, just be kind.

K/Theory

I don't enjoy K debates, and I would recommend not reading one with me. However, I will never vote you down just for running the K. Just know, you will need to explain all elements very well.

I like other theory arguments but only when they are done well. Please, do NOT just read blocks at me, make the analytics to tell me why these arguments are important (voters are a must). If you hit me with a theory argument without giving me a reason to prefer it over the policy impacts, I will divert to policy.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here, articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often. Avoid using buzzwords unless they actually mean something.

DAs/CPs

I personally really like DA/CPs and ran them a lot during my debates, however, CPs must be competitive and they have to have some kind of net benefit (internal or external is fine) that is articulated well to me. Perms must be specific (ie. “Perm do the aff” doesn’t exist). DAs should be unique and the link should be clear. Please don’t read an insubordinate number of offcase positions only to kick them… it’s slimy.

CX

Establish before the round whether or not cross is open, I default believing it is closed cross. CX isn't binding unless you say it is. I'm fine with asserting arguments during this time but, if it's clear you're using this time to have an 11 minute speech, I won't be very happy with you. I ask that you remain respectful. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. Please remember, arguments can be prefaced here, but do not rely on something that happened in cross to be counted as an argument in round. If you want it to be considered, tell me that during your speech.

Overall, remember, we're all friends here.

Former three year debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. My preference on links is pretty generic as I would prefer you to use specific links but generics are fine as long as you are prepared to defend them. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. While it is of course important to talk about all of FW, I believe that the majority of the debate should be on the standards/voters/impacts of FW. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case: The only real arguments for me for the on case are purely solvency based ones. Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, solvency deficits mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc. Besides solvency, I think that case turns are very useful as on case arguments as well. Overall, solvency arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Speaks: I decide speaks based upon argumentation not necessarily presentation. Obviously some speaking ability is factored in, but I’ve gotta be fair to the 1As out there.

email: wazeen.hoq2023@gmail.com

bvn 23

ku 27

I am not very familiar with the topic other than the basic macroeconomic principles taught in AP Macro.

I prefer we use email chain over speechdrop unless we cannot proceed with the debate in a timely manner using emails.

If you have any questions or uncertainties about my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask me before the round.

General

-To minimize the chances of judge interference working against you and to maximize the chances that I give you my ballot, every 2nr/2ar should include judge instruction. Tell me what I am voting on and why I should be voting for it. You don't have to have a framing page to do this, although, they are nice to have.

-Tech > Truth. I am comfortable with voting on arguments contrary to my political and philosophical beliefs because, for me, debate as an activity should be about developing argumentative and persuasive skills, which means if you're winning the flow, you have my ballot. Of course, there are limitations. You would be crossing these limitations if you were cheating or actively harming the emotional/physical well-being of your competitor.

-Completely dropped arguments are true (even vagueness, unfortunately). Functionally dropped arguments are contested, and thus, not true until they are either dropped or I am evaluating both sides at the end of the round.

-This applies more in K/method debates, but I think that, for most people including myself, debate is a game. I think that the activity could be seen as a research activity; however, I think that competition incentivizes the progression of whatever scholarship someone may be developing. For example, if your research is comfortably winning your rounds and tournaments, you would probably be less inclined to change it than if you were to be losing rounds. Of course, there are scenarios where someone could be truly impassioned by the knowledge they're spreading through this type of discourse, so if you think you are one of them, please add personal experiences and/or anecdotes. This will help me see that the activity for you is more than just a game and that it's a research activity you use to search for certain truths.

-I set my standard speaker points at 28.5. I will determine your speaker points based on your "ethos:" how well you compose yourself before, while, and after your constructive; how well you ask and answer questions in cross; how much you rely on your computer; etc. I know that this is more subjective, but if you are a confident, composed debater, you will get good speaks.

-Please don't mention "Wazeen/Judge, you mentioned x in your paradigm..." in your speeches. It's embarrassing...

Kritiks

K debates are fun

-FW: I think fairness is an impact, but it can also be an I/L to education, advocacy skills, etc. As far as interps go, anything works for me.

-Link: They can be links to the plan and/or their representations. I will evaluate your links based on whichever fw interp I think is winning. I don't find links of omission persuasive, but I am happy to vote on them if you explain the impact of the omission well.

-Impacts: Structural and terminal impacts are both fine with me.

-Alts: You can jettison them and go for framework or you can explain the world of the alt--whichever one you choose, I'm fine with voting on either of them.

Counterplans

They're cool. Not partial to either side. Counterplan competition is super important to me if we're ever in a situation where this is a question.

Disadvantages

They're disads--who doesn't love a disad? I don't know much about the topic, but I would assume that uniqueness should be very important in econ topics. Bad uniqueness evidence for me means that the risk of the disad happening and/or the magnitude of the disad's impacts are low and negligible relative to the aff. Link evidence is probably the most important for me. If the disad barely links to the aff, then the 2ar has an easy route to the ballot if they just do sufficient risk calculus.

Topicality

I think that T is more about in-round abuse than models of debate. My T knowledge is a little rusty, so over-explaining a little would be helpful for either aff/neg.

Theory

-Anything other than vagueness: All are fine with me

-Plan Vagueness: Affs, if I have to vote neg on this lazy argument, I will not be happy >:(

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)

assistant coach at de soto

jeanninealopez@gmail.com

i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy arguments

i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over k's is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen, but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplan/disad strategies, so i know those best, but run what you know best

speed is fine only if you are clear

your speech is over once your timer goes off -- you can take a few words to finish a sentence, but anything else that you say isn't going to be on my flow

please ask questions if you have any

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

I am a HUGE SpeechDrop truther, please do not use an email chain.

I am the head coach at De Soto (KS).

Tech/Truth, Ev Quality

For both of these things, I try to limit judge intervention as much as I possibly can. I'm probably 70/30 tech v truth and I think your evidence should actually say what you claim it says. That being said, because of my intervention philosophy, you need to call this out deliberately in the round for me to evaluate it. I will absolutely vote on "untruthful" arguments if there are no responses (or responses too late in the debate) claiming otherwise. However, I am increasingly realizing how much I dislike meme-y arguments in debates so at least make an attempt to say things that are moderately real, otherwise I might embrace my grumpy old man mentality and vote it down on truth claims.

K

I will listen to and evaluate critical positions. I have become a lot more K-friendly over time, but please don't interpret that statement as a green light to read something just because you can. Accessibility is a very important (and, in my opinion, undervalued) part of any kritik. As such, be very explicit on what the role of the ballot is and what the intended impact of the alt and/or performance is. I will vote on no link to the K and I will default to policy impacts if told to do so. Don't be a moving target or change advocacy stances between speeches (obviously you can kick out of the K but some of those things might haunt you on other flows). Perf con arguments are very persuasive to me.

CPs

Competition > nearly everything else. For this reason, I really have a hard time voting for advantage CPs. I am typically persuaded by PICs bad arguments unless the neg can prove competition/lack of abuse in round. Be sure to have a clear net ben (internal or external) and articulate what it is: I've seen far too many CPs without them gone for. For the aff, I don't love hearing a laundry list of every perm you can think of. Read and articulate perms that actually test competitiveness (i.e. "perm do the aff" isn't a thing) and explain how the actions can coexist.

DAs

DAs should be unique. Generics are good but link quality is important.

Condo

I have no threshold for the amount of conditional CPs or Ks or whatever the neg wants to run. However, if the aff wants to read abuse or condo bad I will certainly listen to it. Watch out for those pesky perf cons.

T

Explain your definitions and make sure the card you use has warrants that actually state (or strongly imply) your interp. Competing interps need to be evaluated in terms of both the definition's contextual value to the resolution as well as the warrants of the definition read. Explain your limits/ground. No laundry list here; articulate how exactly in-round abuse has occurred or how what the plan text justifies is bad. Explain your voters. If you want to read and actually go for T, I need to see contextual work done early and often.

Theory (General)

In terms of other theory arguments like spec, disclosure, etc. I need to have clear voters. Make sure to articulate the sequential order of evaluation when multiple theoretical stances are being taken. On this note, RVIs are a *silly* thing and I will *begrudgingly* vote for them but they need to be weighed against the initial theory claim well.

CX

I don't flow CX. I view CX mainly as a means to generate (or lose) ethos in the debate, not necessarily to win arguments on the flow. Don't make this a shouting match please, otherwise I'm just going to ignore both teams and nobody wants that. We're all friends here.

Speed

I am okay with speed. However, if your argument is 1) intricate and requiring significant analytical explanation 2) not in the speech doc or 3) rooted in accessibility literature slow it down. It will help you if I can understand what's going on. I'd prefer you be organized, clear, and slow instead of messy, unintelligible, and fast. I won't ever give up on your speech if you have a hard time with clarity, but just know I may not pick up all of your arguments (obviously a bad thing for you).

Email chain if there is one: logan.michael1101@gmail.com speech drop is kool too.

Debated policy for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School and I'm currently in my 4th year of debating NFA-LD (one person policy) at Washburn University. Second year assistant coaching at WaRu

Generics

Speed: I'm fine with speed if the rest of the room is too. Just slow down for analytics

Judge instruction is real important. Write my ballot for me.

In general you do you. I default to evaluating the round how you tell me to. I would prefer to see you do what you want to do well than do what I like bad. But, just in case

specific arguments:

T/Theory

I can evaluate T so if you feel like the aff is untopical or that you can justify why it's untopical then don't be afraid to go for T in front of me. Also means that you can read untopical affs in front of me if you think you can out tech your opponent

Probably default to condo being good

Ks

I will listen to any K. That being said, i haven’t engaged in the lit base of a lot of them so, if I don't understand the K and it's clear you don't understand the K it will be extremely hard for me to vote on it so make you explain everything (especially your links) well.

CPs

Read 'em

DAs

Read 'em

Things I like: Bow-ties, kool socks. Things I don't like: People being rude (don't do this). I also reward interesting/innovative arguments, don’t be afraid to break norms.

If anything is unclear or you want further clarification just ask before the round or email me. Good luck!

Head coach of Blue Valley Northwest

Background:

I debated policy at Blue Valley North for four years (’04-’08) and LD for one year, I was an assistant coach for policy in Wisconsin at Homestead High School (’13-’14), and was an assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East for debate and forensics prior to my current position ('21-'23).

email for questions or concerns: evan.michaels.debate@gmail.com

Forensics:

For the debate events, organization and rhetoric will significantly help your logic land with me, but proper analysis of your position and your opponent's position should shine through regardless.

If you're looking at my paradigm for speech or dramatic events: first of all, hello and break a leg. Emote and project unless you're not doing so for a purpose. My feedback may be dry and my face may not show it during your performance but I am almost always moved by your performances.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

Policy:

I competed at and am comfortable with most levels of debate but I enjoy logical policy proposals and realistic analysis. One of my degrees is in philosophy, so I am comfortable getting into the weeds on theory and the K—just make sure you are. That said, I prefer clarity over all and specificity of arguments a close second.

Bigotry or discrimination--whether it’s to your opponents, your partner, myself, or anyone else not in the room--will lose you the round. I also understand this is a competition, but lack of respect for one another will lose you speaks.

While I will refer to your speech doc if necessary, I physically flow and I need to actually hear and understand it for it to matter to my ballot. Signpost clearly and make it plain when you are moving on to your next argument. I'll give you two clears, then you will see me either writing or looking at you, if I’m not doing one of those things, slow down or move on.

If your evidence has warrants that you’re pulling through, I will listen for them but I won’t do the work for you; point them out and present the clash and why it matters to the round or it won’t matter to me or the ballot.

In the end, I will vote how y’all tell me to vote, so providing and pulling through a framework is important even if it’s not contested as part of the debate. If none is provided, I will fall back on policy-making but I still need impact calculus and analysis of the claims, warrants, and clash to sway my ballot.

About me: I debated for 3 years at Mill Valley (2015-2018).

Please include me on the email chain: lauren.rothgeb@yahoo.com

Top Level:

Tech > truth, but I still like to see warrants of arguments extended and explained. I won't evaluate anything outside of the debate round.

Please remember that, although it's ok to get passionate during a round, a debate never warrants being mean. Be kind and polite towards your competitors. I take this seriously – you will lose speaker points if you are rude to others.

Delivery:

With things being online, I will need you to slow down. If there are technical difficulties with the audio that impede my ability to understand your argument, I will let you know. In general, I'll need you to slow down with more technical arguments. In the end, I believe debate is a performative activity at its core and should be treated as such. In addition, I prefer to see a few really well developed arguments rather than a flurry of barely supported arguments that simply serve to bombard the opposition. Build your argument strategically and deliver it in a performative fashion – don't let speed or a need for as many arguments as possible get in the way of that.

T:

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not the biggest fan of reasonability. I'm not super familiar with this year's resolution, so please make sure to keep your flow clean, to explain your impacts, and to be clear on what your interp includes or excludes and why that is a good thing.

Performance-based:

I'm not the most familiar with these args, but absolutely feel free to run one if you want. Just make sure to walk me through what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective elsewhere.

CPs:

Make sure if you run these that they are specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive.

K:

I am rather unfamiliar with this arena of debate, but if you enjoy this approach I would love to see it. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. Be prepared to allot more time explaining your arg to me.

DAs:

Love these. The most important thing to me in a good DA is a strong link – really sell it to me.

Framework:

Make sure you explain specifically what the framework does to the debate round.

General stuff:

It's been a little while since I've been in a debate. I love to see all the different fun things you can introduce in a debate round, but just make sure you are explaining everything (especially the more technical things) clearly and concisely. This means slowing down and creating a story that is compelling.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck and have fun!

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

Updating May 2024 for NCFL.

Yes email chain (I prefer Speechdrop if it's all the same but good with whatever) - eskoglund@gmail.com

POLICY DEBATE

Clipping Policy

Clipping - Representing, through sending a speech doc or other means, that you have read evidence which was not read in the round. If evidence is highlighted, skipping any un-highlighted words is clipping; if evidence is not highlighted, skipping any un-underlined words is clipping. Verbal indications to "cut" or "mark" a card are acceptable indications that you have chosen not to read all of a particular card in the doc, and you should be prepared to provide a marked version of your speech to your opponents if requested.

Last year at NCFL, I noticed a severe problem with clipping among many of the teams who are competing. You are welcome to use whatever tournament rules are involved to make a formal challenge, but even absent that, here is how I will handle clipping at the 2024 NCFL (and beyond).

1) If you clip a card, I will make my decision as though you did not read that card at all. It will be removed from my flow.

2) If you, as a team, clip four or more cards, you will lose my ballot on poor evidence ethics without the need for a formal challenge.

3) If both teams in a debate violate #2, I will decide the debate as normal based on any un-clipped cards from both sides.

Background

Olathe South 2001, 1 year at KU

Head coach, Olathe Northwest HS, Kansas (assistant 2006-2016, head 2016-present)

90%+ of my judging is on a local circuit with varying norms for speed, argumentation, etc.

1) My most confident decisions happen in policymaker-framed rounds. That is more of a statement of experience than philosophy; I will do my best to follow you to other places where the debate takes us.

2) If your aff doesn't advocate a topical plan text, the burden is on you to ensure that I understand your advocacy and framework. If you don't make at least an attempt to relate to the resolution, I am likely to struggle to understand how you justify an affirmative ballot.

3) Debate is an oral activity. While I will want your speech docs, I flow based on what I hear. If I don't hear it, I will not fill in my flow later based on what you send.

4) I will follow speech docs to watch for clipping. Egregious clipping will lead me to decide the round even if a formal challenge is not filed. (Also see above for specific info about this at NCFL.)

5) Whether you've got a plan, an advocacy statement, or whatever - much of the work coming out of camps is so vague as to be pointless. You don't need a six plank plan or a minute of clarification, but a plan should be more than the resolution plus a three word mission statement. I will err neg on most questions of links and/or theory when affirmatives ignore this.

6) I don't judge kick unless given explicit instruction to that effect. I don't generally believe in a conditional 2NR.

7) Flow the debate, not the speech doc. Very little moves my speaker point calculation down faster than debaters responding to arguments that were not made in the debate.

8) Anytime you're saying words you want on my flow, those need to not be at 400 wpm please. If you fly through a theory block at maximum evidence speed, it probably won't all make it onto my flow.

9) On T, I primarily look for a competing interpretation framework. "Reasonability" to me just means that I can find more than one interpretation acceptable, not that you don't have to meet an interp.

10) Long pre-written overviews in rebuttals are neither helpful nor persuasive.

11) I will not lie to your coach about the argumentation that is presented in the round. I will not tolerate the debate space being used to bully, insult, or harass fellow competitors. I will not evaluate personal disputes between debaters.

12) I think disclosure probably ought to be reciprocal. If you mined the aff's case from the wiki then I certainly hope you are disclosing negative positions. My expectations for disclosure are dependent on the division and tournament, and can be subject to theory which is argued in the round. DCI debaters in Kansas should be participating in robust disclosure, at a minimum after arguments have been presented in any round of a tournament.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

First and foremost, this is a debate event. Any speech after the authorship/sponsorship speech should be making direct, meaningful reference to prior speakers in the debate. Simply repeating or rehashing old points is not an effective use of your, or my, time. Several speeches in a row on the same side is almost always bad debate, so you should be prepared to speak on both sides of most legislation.

The fastest path to standing out in most chambers is to make it clear that you're debating the actual content of the legislation, not just some vague idea of the title. Could I get your speech by just Googling a couple of words in the topic, or have you actually gotten into the specific components of the legislation before you?

I come from the policy debate planet originally but that doesn't mean I want you to speed. We have different events for a reason.

Role playing is generally good, particularly if we're at a circuit or national tournament where your constituents might be different from others in your chamber.

I notice and appreciate effective presiding officers who know the rules and work efficiently, and will rank you highly if your performance is exemplary.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I come from a fairly traditional LD circuit, so while I can understand policy type argumentation, my decision calculus may be a bit unpredictable if you just make this a 1 on 1 CX round with too-short speech times.

I am watching for clipping and will directly intervene against you if you clip cards in a way that I judge to be egregious, even if the issue is not raised in the round.

My default way of evaluating an LD round is to compare the impacts presented by both sides through the lens of each side's value and criterion, if presented. If you want me to do something different please run a clear role of the ballot or framework argument and proactively defend why your approach is predictable enough to create fair debate.

Your last 1-2 minutes, at least, should be spent on the big picture writing my reason for decision. Typically the debater who does this more clearly and effectively will win my ballot.

PUBLIC FORUM

Clash is super important to all forms of debate and is most often lacking in PF. You need to be comparing arguments and helping me weigh impacts.

Pointing at evidence (i.e., paraphrasing) is not incorporating it into the round. If you don't actually read evidence I won't give it any more weight than if you had just asserted the claim yourself. Smaller quotations are fine, but the practice of "this is true and we say this from Source X, Source Y, and the Source Z study" is anti-educational.

I really prefer speechdrop. For email chain: rtidwell.gcea@outlook.com.

I have been the head coach at Garden City High School since 1994, and have been involved with judging or coaching debate since the mid-1980s. I have judged a LOT of debates over the years. I've judged a fair number of rounds on this topic, both at tournaments and in my classroom. I will do my very best to evaluate the round that happens in front of me as fairly as possible.

Paradigm-I will default to policy making if debaters don't specifically give me another way to evaluate the debate. I tend to default to truth over tech. I want debaters to clash with each other's arguments. I have come to dislike debates where both sides read pre-prepared blocks through the 1AR, and the arguments never actually interact.

You should probably watch me for feedback. I don't hide reactions very well...

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. If you choose not to do that, I will absolutely sort the debate out for you, but then you should not complain about the decision. It's your job to frame the round for me. If you don't, you force me to intervene.

Speed- I like a quick debate, but I don't get to see those as much as I used to, so if you are incredibly fast, you may want to watch me a bit to see if I'm keeping up. You'll be able to tell. I also find that I can flow much faster rate if you are making tonal differences between tags and evidence. It also helps if your tags are not a full paragraph in length...

Style- I suspect that even adding this section makes me sound old, but these things matter to me:

I still think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. It's still a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. I will (and have) intervened in a round and used the ballot to help a debater or a team understand that there are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I really do find offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.) to be truly offensive, and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments..

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time- I kind of despise prep time thieves, and I think that sharing evidence has allowed that practice to explode. If you say "I'm up", and then continue typing, that's prep. I will be reasonable about ev sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable, here, too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX- open CX is fine. In fact, I think it often makes for a better debate. That being said, if one partner does all the asking and answering, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much his/her colleague is valued.

Disadvantages- As I said, I'm a policymaker. I vote on the way that advantages and disadvantages interact more than I vote on anything else. I don't mind generic DAs, but I prefer that Neg take the time to articulate a specific link. I'm also a big fan of turns from the affirmative (or from the negative on advantages). I really enjoy a case-specific DA, but they just don't happen very often. I like buried 1NC links that blow up into impacts in the block. I like impact extension/blow-up in the block. I am not a fan of brand-new, full, offensive positions in the 2NC.

Critical arguments- I don't mind a critical debate, but I think that needs to be more than "Aff links, so they lose". Critiques need to have a real, evidenced, articulated justification for my vote- either a clear alternative or some other reason that the argument is enough to win the debate. I am willing to entertain both real-world and policy-level impacts of the criticism. It is really important that you give me the framing for these arguments, and, specifically explain why the argument warrants my ballot. I am not well-read in very much of the critical literature, so it will be important for you to explain things pretty clearly. As with other arguments, I'm pretty willing to listen to turns on these arguments.

In terms of critical affs, I believe that aff should have a plan text, and that plan text should be topical. It's a big hurdle for the affirmative if they don't start there. That being said, I am perfectly ok with critical advantage stories. Again- framing matters.

Counterplans-I'm fine with a CP. I'm not a big fan of the theory that often gets run against a CP. I just don't find it very persuasive.

T- I will vote on T, and I don't think 2NR has to go all in in the 2NR to win it. I believe topicality is, first and foremost, an argument about fairness, and I think that it's an important mechanism for narrowing the topic. Again, I'm a truth-over-tech person, so I'm not very likely to vote on T simply because someone dropped the 4th answer to some specific standard. I'm not a fan of "resolved" or ":" T.

Narratives/Performance/etc- I'm not a huge fan, but I will absolutely listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. I specifically do not like any argument that attacks anyone in the room in a personal way. I would refer you to my notes about professionalism. As for the arguments themselves, I am not sure I am your best judge for evaluating this style of debate, but that might be because I have seen very few well handled debates in this style.

BVNW '22/KU '26

she/her

yes email chain: syangdebate@gmail.com and bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

don't be mean- disclosure is good n fun

Overall Thoughts:

My face is the easiest indicator of what I think about an argument

Tech>truth. Evidence comparison is super important, reading one really good card is way better than dumping 5 bad cards. Also, please extend warrants! It's hard for me to evaluate a card when you just shadow-extend tags.

Love judge instruction in rebuttals-- what should my ballot look like, what am I voting for and the implications of it

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round

T:

Competing interps>reasonability, if you want me to vote on reasonability you should explain what that looks like. What does it mean to sustain "a year's worth of debates". Please slow down, especially if you're reading blocks. It's really hard to flow analytics and speeding through them will only hurt you. Explaining how you access their offense but they can't access yours is particularly helpful here.

DAs/CPs:

Specific links to the aff for a DA can be super persuasive. I think a lot of teams overlook weak internal link chains that mitigate a huge amount of risk for impacts. If you're reading big stick vs. soft left, impact calc is super important.

I think every CP needs a solvency advocate, especially those with multiple planks. I am not the best judge for you if you are banking on competition theory to win.

Ks:

Specific links to the aff are important and links of omission make me sad. It's super effective when you rehighlight 1AC evidence for links or if you quote cx, and you'll probably get higher speaks if you do so. I don't think the neg has to go for the alt, but if you do go for the alt, you should explain how it resolves link arguments and the impacts.

K Affs:

Read a K aff my junior and senior year of hs. I'm more familiar with FWK v K affs compared to K v K debates.

The aff's method doesn't need to have a telos, but the aff team should be able to articulate what their method looks like, what it does, why the ballot is key, how it's a departure from the squo, etc. I think going for an impact turn to T is much more persuasive than trying to go for a W/M.

On the neg if you're going for the K please do impact calc and judge instruction would be super helpful. How do I weigh clash/fairness against the aff's impacts? I think clash is much more persuasive than fairness as a fwk impact. I am heavily persuaded by turns case analysis at the top for both the K and fwk. Fwk should be a question of models that both sides justify.

Theory:

I probably won't vote on theory outside of condo, but I think reading multiple theory arguments as a time skew can be smart sometimes. If you're going for condo you should point out specific instances of abuse in round and why it's bad for debate.

Other Thoughts:

- If the rehighlighting is more than a sentence long you should read them, otherwise you can insert

- Don't talk over your partner in cx, also, don't answer every question for your partner. If you don't understand an argument enough to answer CX questions, you probably shouldn't read it.

- Reading/cutting good ev is important, but your explanation/application of it matters so much more

- If you send me an email I pinky promise I'll get to it eventually, I'm just slow at responding