Baine Dikeman

Eisenhower High School

Head Coach

Previously Mulvane High School

Assistant Coach

Debating experience

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.

I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

I really don't like new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

I’m a head coach.

My priorities as a judge are based on equal amounts of communication and resolution of substantive issues.

My paradigm is based on skill, and I’m closer to a Tabula Rasa judge than anything else.

Fairly rapid delivery is okay, but if I don’t understand you, I will not flow your argument. It must be articulate, include tonal differences/variation, and have clear points. Tag lines should be short and to the point. I can’t flow a whole paragraph if you’re moving fast. You should keep an eye on me to make certain I am keeping up. If not, I strongly sugges you adjust.

I dislike spreading during Rebuttals. I do NOT find that persuasive at all.

Rudeness or condescension toward your competitors is never welcome. Part of what you're supposed to learn from Debate is collegiality, professionalism, and decorum.

Offensive language (curse words, slurs, etc.) is unnecessary and in most contexts, repugnant. There are a few, very limited instances where they might be ok, but would need to have a point far beyond the shock factor or emphasis.

Prep time is 8 minutes. You should be tracking your opponents prep time. If they are stealing prep, call them on it.

Counterplans are just another argument but should be consistent in the overall Negative approach.

Topicality is an argument that I will vote on if it’s ignored or dropped by the Affirmative, but it has to be pretty blatant for me to vote on it otherwise. I particularly dislike T args that use an obviously disingenuous interpretation.

Generic disadvantages are fine so long as specific links are clearly analyzed.

Kritiks are just another argument, though I prefer that links are clearly analyzed. Simply linking the other team to the kritik is not enough for me to vote on. There has to be a clear alternative. I am not well versed in Krit lit, so explanation is welcome. Aff Ks are tough because the topic exists for a reason and ignoring it entirely is outside the bounds of fairness. Somewhere in the argument should be an alt or explanation as to why we should a. Ignore the topic and b. That it is fair and reasonable for a negative team to be prepared for doing so in this context. Framing is crucial to this end.

Narratives/Story-telling/Performative/Poetry/etc. Is interesting, as my background is in Forensics and it’s where I began my coaching career, but Debatel has structure and norms. I believe these things have their place in Debate as they are all potentially persuasive, I would also need to know why you’re using your precious few minutes on something that is not an argument.

Debate is primarily about education and partly about fun. Try your best but don't take things too seriously, as we won't implement any of the plans based on how a high school Debate round goes.

Feel free to ask me questions for clarity or specifics on any of this.

Keeping track of your time and opponents' time is your job and part of Debate's challenge.

Please add me to your email chain: dunlap_johnny@443mail.org.

Hannah Erdman, Eisenhower High School, Assistant Debate Coach

Previous Experience: HS Policy Debate, Kansas State University Policy Debate

-Please keep email chains off-time, however please be time efficient and use best practices. If that means requesting I be included, please let me know.

-Keep track of your opponent's prep time. I will be giving constructive feedback and actively writing notes and flow. To keep this from being hindered, your use in timing and keeping track of prep time when there is no timekeeper is highly appreciated.

-Debate is about strategy and confidence-- while some aggression is to be expected, I do not want to hear yelling, curse words, or slurs. Do not threaten physical violence and do not insult your opponent's physical appearance or character.

-While I am able to understand most speeds, I deeply appreciate the ability to annunciate and signpost cards and arguments effectively to keep the flow as accurate as possible. If I am unable to keep the flow accurate, that may lead to my voting against your team.

-I go into each round objectively neutral and with no strong favor in either direction. My personal politics do not play into who I vote for, rather the best debate and who provided the strongest arguments all the way through. I do flow arguments to when and how they are addressed.

-On Disadvantages: I like generic DA's, but DA's with strong, specific links are more apt to be voted on, as they are better for complex, competitive debate.

-On Counterplans: CPs can be run, but believe in your counterplan and be confident!

-On Kritik: I love good K, but make it SPECIFIC. You can feel free to run generic K, but I feel as though it does not lend itself for constructive debate.

-On Topicality: I love hearing T arguments-- keep them interesting and stick with them throughout the round! T is a completely valid strategy to use in-round.

-I LOVE framework, rules, and semantics debate. Keep it fun, keep it interesting.

-If you are not flowing, I will not flow. This will ultimately hinder your team.

-Do NOT put new arguments in the 2NC-- it is unfair to the other team to try and answer in rebuttals.

herdman@usd259.net

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.

Me

(she/her) -mariannegriffithdb8@gmail.com

4 years of debate at Maize High ---> 1st year debating at Wichita State

2a for 3 years, now a 2n

Pro-small schools and programs always and forever yall don’t get enough credit for the work you do to be able to compete

----

For novices! - Try your best and be confident i will be happy to answer any questions after round and provide any help you need - Extending arguments into the rebuttals is key to being able to win and going for your best arguments in your last speeches - speak loudly and give a road map of what you're going over

----

Overview

Tech>Truth - despite some of my opinions this applies to all arguments (except for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)

Speed is good but clarity makes speed possible

debate is a game.

read rehighlightings

i will not vote on out of round stuff

I'm not a fan of theory debates, ugh, please do not be the team that throws the debate away and goes 5 minutes of condo in the 1ar. go for substance.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I will just assume it says X.

my predispositions here don't mean I won't vote for an argument if you're winning it. they are just my preferences - debaters should be able to say nearly anything they want to in a debate - judges should adapt to debaters

Case

Impact turns please and thank you - does this mean wipeout? - i would rather not, but it's your round.

I went for a whole batch of impact turns heg bad and democracy bad being the ones i read the most

Topicality

competing interps are good

aff should go for reasonability is a solid arg and mishandled a lot of the time by the neg - substance crowdout as an impact is almost always dropped and can turn and outweigh lots of impacts the neg might bring up

I will really really not want to vote on dumb interps these things include [t-increase, insert thing is not included in the plan text, not a big fan of vagueness/aspec args - vagueness favors the aff]

you should explain the vision of the topic under your interp - these include things like caselists and tvas

Theory

most theory is a reason to reject the arg and not the team, except for condo

Eh I think i lean toward condo good, but i honestly don't have that strong of a preference here, i could go either way on it - just win the flow

Counterplans

I will judge kick when told to

Probably not the best for complex competition debates

Counterplans with solvency deficits to the case as reasons why the counterplan is better -amazing, stunning

adv cps - fine - a million planks not so much… multiplank cps bad is pretty persuasive on the condo debate if the team does it right

pics - good

DAs

fav is ptx <3, I think link debates are important. low risk of link or sus link = low chance of ballot. impact calc is also super important here. Evidence comparison is good.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

Ks on the neg

I've went for the k a good chunk of times - the two being fem and biopolitics

Over all, I have lots of experience with k lit including [afropess and its other variations, queer ks, orientalism, set col, cap, biopolitics, fem] - but i will need hand-holding on [pscyhoanalysis, baudrillard, bataille, deleuze, heidegger] - I'm ashamed to say I did run a cybernetics k for a bit and do know what it's about

Good for any type of framework debating I did a ton of it - wish I would see more interaction on these flows on the interp debate like we meet arguments

links of omission and to the status quo are not real links - so i'll definitely be swayed if the aff team goes for this type of argument - pls get better links y'all... - please aff teams make the arg to frame the debate through link uq

I think neg teams need to stop spamming disads that are the same thing the 1ar if they’re smart can just group them and you lose time

if your k relies on ontology then you have to win this debate or else you'll probably lose - ontology examples are definitely quality over quantity - you should use examples to implicate the K and how the world works (whether you're aff or neg)

Yay alt debate make sure you know what it does and can explain it outside of buzzwords -

I went for the floating pik a lot and won on it (an actual horrible amount) but, they're usually bad and it doesn't mean i like them- unless you say the words "it solves the entirety of the aff and circumvents the links" or articulate it as that i'm probably not going to weigh it as actually solving - blippy explanations are not real arguments to how it would work and saying “maybe” it solves just proves it doesn’t… if you barely mention it in the block and then it becomes the 2nr you will probably lose and I will look at you funny and the 2a has full permission to clown on you

rejection alts are alts but they're not very good ones

K affs

I'm think i'm OK for k affs - but i probably lean neg on a lot of things

I've always been on the neg against these affs. I think K affs should be in the direction of the topic and have an explainable theory of power that can be used against the neg's offense - solvency and actually having a mechanism are important in these debates whether that method be activism or something else

Clash and fairness can be impacts, but they can also be internal links - it all depends on the articulation that happens in the round - usually i find myself thinking that clash is a better impact and a lot of the time fairness is just explained as "fairness" without an impact to it - is it burnout? debaters leaving?

Quantifying limits and grounds for both sides are important here especially if you're going for the counter-interp, and when you're neg trying to prove loss of clash

usually counter-interps are bad and it makes the most sense to go for the impact turns

I've have seen a k v k debate once

Clipping

I follow along in the doc. Meeting my minimum standard for clipping will result in a loss, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it

(stolen from Nathan Glancy)

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

if you want to accuse the other team of clipping then you need to stake the round on it

Misc

I've noticed an increasing amount of debaters just not letting the other team talk AT ALL in cross x and so i have a very low threshold for this because it's annoying and your speaks will probably get lowered

Disclosure is ALWAYS good and people are getting increasingly worse at it - i will most definitely vote on a disclosure interp if a team doesn't open source any of their docs and just uses cites- +.5 speaks if you tell me opensource (i will check)

cross x is always open unless another judge objects

pointing out author quals is good

John Hale

(He/Him)

Judging for Wichita East, I have limited experience with debate and am not familiar with acronyms or excessive debate lingo. I evaluate the round based on the number of points made and on which team has the most persuasive argument. I don’t flow, but I will take notes on the round and will always be as unbiased as possible.

Speed: I understand the theory behind Spreading, but cannot follow an argument made by someone using it .

K’s: As I have never debated before, I have no experience with K lit and I will probably not understand it whatsoever.

CPs: I have trouble understanding confusing perms and CP theory, please be thorough if you go for either of these strategies.

The use of racial/sexist/homophobic/transphobic slurs, in any way other than as used by individuals who are affected by those slurs, results in 0 speaks and a loss. Be mindful of problematic (non-slur) language. Mistakes happen, but so must sincere apologies.

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 did debate for four years at Wichita East

I’m good with all parts of debate, just make sure you explain it well (please don’t run a k if you don’t understand it).

Please don’t belittle the other team or I will lower your points.

I’m pretty good with speed, just make sure you are speaking clearly.

Let’s all try to have a fun and healthy debate. You can learn from every round whether you win or lose. Even if you don’t think you’ll win, please try your best!

No need to be super tense, I’m really welcome to jokes. Making a dad joke will probably get you extra points.

If you’re doing an email chain, please add me dolorunfemi3@gmail.com

he/him

Hi! I'm Angelica :) I'm a former debater for Dodge City High School and I now serve as the assistant coach. I've competed in Lincoln-Douglas & Policy, preferring policy. I am a stock issues lover, as it's how I was raised in my first years of debate.

I LOVE it when things are explained simply. I am neurodivergent and things like summaries at the end of cards are awesome for me, not necessary though. I am not a fan of spreading, but if you MUST, I'd like a copy of evidence to help me follow along. CPs are okay with me! I'm not a fan of K args but if you're gonna run them please explain them to me, while I consider myself smart, I am not good at focusing. yes to theory too btw!

tl;dr

• love stock issues so much
• i prefer you don't spread but give me evidence to follow if u need to!
• yes to counterplans
• ok to kritiks BUT explain them well plz
• yes theory args
• thanks 4 being in debate :)

other things about me because i love talking about myself:

• i love taylor swift & boygenius
• i have chronic bronchitis -- it's not contagious! but please don't hate me if i cough
• i am a queer mexican woman -- take this into consideration before running Ks related to my identity
• i live in lawrence, ks part time
• i'm a criminal justice major on my school's pre-law track
• i love when girls, nb people, and POC are involved in debate!

add me to the chain please - devinshortdebate@gmail.com

currently my fourth year at maize high school - have debated CJR, water protection, and NATO

if you make a political joke I will laugh

SHORTER:

I am pretty much cool with any argument - make sure you explain it well for me. If I am not understanding it, you very well may see it on my face.

Write my ballot for me in the rebuttals - tell me why you outweigh and resolve arguments

Tech>Truth

Overall, debate is something that I really enjoy, so make sure you have fun! My most memorable debates were where I got to crack jokes with everyone in the room, and just enjoy the activity.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round and I would be happy to clarify!

LONGER:

T - I default to competing interps, but I'll default reasonability if told to do so. Please read standards and tell me about why your interp is best for debate

DAs - Love them. Make sure to do impact calc with them! For example, there was a round one time where the DA was dropped in the 1AR, which meant there was 100% risk of the impacts, but the 2AR had amazing impact calc as to why case outweighed - so impact calc is important.

CPs - Always really fun. Most theory is a reason to reject the arg. But if you are compelling otherwise then I might vote differently.

Ks - I am most familiar with Cap/security literature, the main kritiks. I lean towards fairness being an impact but can definitely be convinced otherwise. If you are reading a K and I have no idea what it says you will see it on my face and you will need to pretend I am a second grader that you're explaining it to.

Theory - I enjoy a good theory debate. Most theory is a reason to reject the arg except for condo. I am not quite sure where I stand yet on whether it is good or bad.

Novices - I don't think that if the aff doesn't have 100% of their stock issues won without a shadow of a doubt that it is an automatic neg ballot. This is why impact calc is important. If you are neg, explain why the plan is a bad idea. If you are aff, make sure you explain to me why it needs to be done. I will vote for whoever I think is right at the end of the round. Don't just say "they haven't met their burden of all their stock issues so they automatically lose." It won't work in front of me.

How to win in front of me?

Please please please impact things out - especially in your final rebuttals. Let me know why you should win and make it clear. How do you outweigh? Why is what you are advocating for important? If you instruct me on how to vote in the rebuttals you will make my decision easier and it might be closer to what you want than what I would vote on myself. I am assuming you would want me to make your decision and not the other team's decision.

(these are my thoughts translated into debate lingo by my daughter)

I am a lay/parent judge and evaluate stock issues. Please use judge instruction and tell me why you do/don't solve the aff. I prefer listening to DA's as they make the most sense to me. If you run a CP, I will not understand the rules of things like perms, linking to net benefits, etc. and will likely only evaluate whether or not the aff or the cp is a face-level better idea. Please do not run K's.

I like good public speaking skills, persuasion, and confidence.