Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

Washburn Rural '25

My pronouns are they/them. I’d prefer if you referred to me as Jace but in the end it doesn’t much matter.

General thoughts:

Respect:

Debate is fun, and is supposed to be fun for everyone. If you engage in tactics meant to detract from the experience of debate (ie. making meme arguments, being rude or disrespectful) your speaks will generally reflect that. I have 0 tolerance for the use of slurs of any variety, or any bigotedness towards anyone. That will result in a loss, no questions asked.

Speed and Clarity:

I generally pride myself in being able to keep up with decently fast speech, but if you aren’t clear I won’t be able to hear you. If you want to be safe, slow down on the flow and on heavy theory debates. Just an FYI, I do have a hearing disorder that makes it harder to hear quiet speech and certain consonants, but as long as you are clear and have good pronunciation, we should be peachy. I will clear you if I truly can’t flow, but I will still try to write down what I can hear.

Questions and Accessibility:

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions before or after the round. I'm here to help and clarify any doubts you might have. Even after the tournament, feel free to reach out via email, and I'll do my best to provide assistance and guidance.

Counterplans:

These are really fun. Whether it’s a cheat-y process counterplan or a normal PIC, counterplans and competition are fun debates to have and watch. There are some theory debates I agree with more, such as 50 state fiat bad (especially on a non-controversial topic, come on guys), word PICs bad, delay CPs bad, etc. Some theory arguments probably aren’t true like no neg fiat, condo bad, offsets bad, etc. It is always, however, up for debate, so go at it.

Disadvantages:

Disads are perf! I am a 1n, so I always enjoy a good disad and clean execution in the 1nr. Try to read impacts that are external, and less internal links is generally better, but at the end of the day if you can explain it I’m game.

Kritiks:

Kritiks are a grey area for me. As a 2a, I have trauma related to kritiks, but they also are core neg ground and provide some fun debates. I lean towards fairness as an internal link, but only because people don’t explain burnout as the impact. Clash is the better aff impact. Education is true but might not outweigh. Debate shapes subjectivity but probably not on a round by round basis. I’m only experienced with lit surrounding SetCol, Disability, and Cap, so anything else needs explanation of the theories powering it. Don’t just say “libidinal economy means they harm black folk” or “ontology means no perm” or “the drive to repopulate turns the aff”. Explain to me why these things mean what you say they mean, and I’m leagues more likely to vote for you.

FW:

See above for impact thoughts. Neg frameworks usually don't actually mean the aff doesn't get their aff, philosophical competition is bad and makes 0 sense, reps are important but the impacts of the aff shape and can justify reps, and the negative should probably get any link they want as long as they at least make sense. State bad, economics bad, specific words bad, etc all are valid links. That's just my feelings tho, I'll vote in both directions.

Topicality:

Topicality hurts my brain but is fun. If you go for a WM that isn’t obvious, definitions of extra words can help. IE “increase is distributed disjunctively” or “and means or”, etc.

Theory:

For other theory arguments, you need an interpretation, offense, and defense. If you have that, I'll vote on it, or strike arguments based on it. 50 state fiat is probably not a reason to reject the team. Condo is. PICs probably aren't. 2nc counterplans probably are. But it's all up for debate anyway.

Case Debate:

In addition to your counterplans, disadvantages, and Ks, don't forget the importance of robust case debate. Well-developed arguments that directly engage with your opponent's case are highly valued in my judging approach.

Speaker Points:

I appreciate effective communication skills and a clear presentation of arguments. These factors may influence speaker points positively. On the flip side, rudeness, condescension, or overly aggressive behavior can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Evidence Quality:

Emphasize the quality of evidence over quantity. Credible, well-reasoned sources and in-depth analysis will carry more weight in my evaluation of arguments.

Cross-Ex:

Cx is an essential part of the debate. Effective use of it to extract key information and challenge your opponent's case increases your odds of winning. Forcing concessions in cx is all too often over looked, and I feel as if more cx moments should be referenced in speeches.