Tabroom.com

DKC Eastgate Middle School Tournament

2024 — kC, MO/US

CX Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Alison Atwood Hire None

Izzy Bautista Hire None

Gary Enrique Bradley-Lopez Eisenhower Middle School None

William Brame Arrowhead Middle School None

CJ Clevenger Hire

Last changed on Thu October 10, 2024 at 6:57 AM CST

Clint "C.J." Clevenger
School: Blue Valley North
Years Judging: 15+
Rounds on Topic: 0
Last Updated 2024

Important Updates: I stopped coaching and judging several years ago, which means that I have stopped cutting cards and keeping a detailed account of the topic. I have updated this for the 24-25 season. For those of you filling out prefs who might recognize my name from years ago (you are probably a coach now or getting old like me and still coaching) who have had me previously as a judge and were accustomed to me being deeply on top of the topic, consider this fair warning, I am not. I am reading about the topic but not actively cutting cards or doing strategy work. I am back in some pools now because I am old enough to have kids debating and thus am lucky to get to be back to doing this. I do happen to know the topic because it is now a point of discussion within our house. Something else to note, I do enjoy judging and spending my time in this activity and given that I am not coaching any longer actively, judging becomes a great experience and interaction point for me.

General: I enjoy watching technical debates with good strategies. This guide is to get you to a point to win the debate with the best speaker points possible. Arguments need to pass the common sense test (i.e. the use of logic)…There are 3 parts of an argument Claim, Warrant, and Data, your arguments need to use all 3, otherwise they cease to be arguments. It helps to point out missing items of these if you are the opposing team. FLOW!FLOW! FLOW! FLOW! My flow is a written account of the debate and how I make my decision. You should be flowing the debate and use the line by line to answer arguments that the other team is making. No I do not desire to be a part of the speech doc chain. I am listening to you speak I don't want to read a long.

Clarity: SLOW DOWN!!! You are not as clear as you think you are! I don’t call for many cards (read almost zero) unless I need them to clarify and argument or compare the warrants that were discussed by teams. I don’t think it is my job to read your evidence to determine what it says. I do think it is YOUR job as a debater to communicate both with me and the other team what that evidence says and means. Speech docs are not an alternative to your spoken word. I expect to be able to understand every word that you say. The text of the evidence that you read is the most important thing you read in debate because it is what gives you the warrants to win debates in front of me. I think debaters would be well advised to slow down to 85% of their top speed, because you are not as clear as you think you are. Important notes: I will call clear if I can’t understand you twice. After that I will give non-verbal signals like putting my pen down and staring at you. You should take this as a clue that I have quit flowing your arguments and they at that point cease to be arguments in my mind in the round. Your speaker points will suffer if I am yelling clear. Debaters should feel free to make arguments during their speech about the clarity of an argument that the other team made, I will give non-verbals if I agree or not. This is a good way to show me two things: 1. that you are listening to the speech and not just reading the speech doc and 2. that you are probably flowing. Both of which are likely to help your speaker points.

Voting Speed: I have been told that I vote very quickly. Most of the time I already know what the nexus issues in the debate are that I have to resolve for me to make a decision, once I have identified these, decisions come quickly. If you want to win, I would recommend you start to identify them as well. Often times I do not call for cards. This is because I am not going to sort through your evidence to find the warrants in it to support your arguments. You should be doing this work not me. If you are not doing it and the other team is that is probably a reason that you will lose the debate and I don't want to entertain a discussion about your evidence that I should have read that you didn't talk about. This is a spoken activity; I listen to all of the speech, not just the tags. I do this because I want to list to what your evidence actually says (you know the warrants you are supposedly reading that you have not highlighted out of them). I expect clarity through the entire speech, if you are not able to perform this, then you are wasting your breath. I flow warrants of evidence and I also flow the Cross-X.

Topicality: Competing interpretations really make sense to me. Reasonability seems pretty circular. I am a judge will to vote on T. The biggest problem that I see in T debates is the lack of internal link and impact work in the standards debate. Painting a picture for me of what the topic looks like under your interpretation (usually large or small) and WHY that interpretation is best for debate is the simplest that I can break it down. Too often teams just say, here is our interp and we/they are in/out of it. That is not enough, because the inclusion/exclusion of one case does not make a topic. It is all of the other things that your interp allows/excludes that make the topic, it is really just happenstance that it excludes/includes the affirmative.

Kirtiks: I am getting there. I have read some lit now, I am coming along slowly. Still think I am not the best judge for the K, but there is not an ideological predisposition for voting against it. Read more below on the "performance" debate section about teams that want to pref me who go for the K. I think the same things apply here as well. Sometimes I get lost, once I am lost, like most people I tend to seek ground in debates that I am familiar with, this probably means aff arguments like No V2L without Life and case outweighs or permutation arguments. It doesn't mean standard Ks like Cap and Threat Construction aren't there for me its the more complex stuff that if I haven't read it you need to be doing more explanation work for me to make sure that I understand how it all connects and works.

Performance/Non-Resolution Engaging AFFs: In my ideal world I think the Affirmative should defend some form of engagement of the resolution. My predisposition does not require the defending of a "plan" but does incline me to believe that the AFF should certainly engage the idea that there should be an (insert action of the resolution here) Now, saying that I think the AFF should engage the resolution does not mean they have to, nor do I have a predesignated will to vote against teams that choose not to. I will and have listened to debates about the state of debate and other things. The difference in my comfort has to do with a level of understanding of arguments. I will be honest. The more often I am prefed into these debates and watch them I think the better understanding I will have for the arguments, allowing me to develop a better skill set as a judge. If you are a team chooses to debate in this style, I understand the perceived risk in prefing me, I will definitely say I am not a perfect judge for this style of debate right now, but to be clear - this is a statement of a willingness to learn and expand upon my capabilities as a judge. So on that note - I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to both broaden and sharpen my skills.

Theory: 20 years and I still have yet to hear a good reason that makes sense for conditionality, especially when used in conjunction with contradictory arguments. I spent a lot of time when I was coaching, thinking about theory. I actually don’t mind theory debates. I give 2ARs and 1ARs a little more leeway in going for theory, but the argument still needs to be there for the 2AR from the 1AR. I want to hear a warrant for your argument not 7 points of blip. I think 3 good warranted arguments are better than 7 sentences about 7 different things. That being said, plenty of people run conditional arguments in front of me, and it still takes the right arguments from the AFF to win conditionality debates. That being said I think I voted AFF on condo bad when the AFF went for it in the 2AR (does not need to be the whole speech, but you need to invest some time to get it done) probably around 80% of the time. Most of the other theory questions you have about CPs will be answered below.

Counter-Plans: I think most CPs are legit. You should have some form of solvency advocate for your CP. Evidence about the link to the net-benefit is not a solvency advocate. In these instances lit checks abuse for the most part. Be willing to spend time talking about the impact. So be willing to do an impact comparison that "if I reject the argument not the team, then they d/n have a cp to solve case, which was conceded by the 2NR and it outweighs their net-benefit without a CP" This will get you a very long way. NEG read the inverse if you think you are schooling them on the rest of the debate and this is their only way out, a little preempt will go a long way to better speaks. Consult CPs/Condition CPs/PICs are a different monster. AFFs too often fail to debate or understand the normal means, that can get them out of a lot of the consult debates. PICs out of words are probably not the best strat in front of me. There are a TON of CPs on this topic, and there is zero reason why we should not debate them. International fiat is a risky endeavor. I can be sold either way. 50 State Fiat doesn't make a lot of sense and hopefully modern theory on this has gotten better.

Rebuttals (specifically 2NR/2AR): This is where you should be comparing impacts for me and explaining how I should vote. A good impact comparison does more than just magnitude, timeframe, and whatever.. it actually compares your impact risk in relation to their impact risk. Reality is you are not winning all of your arguments. You will start to lose fewer debates once you can realize what arguments that you are and are not losing. This is the speech that you have to think like a judge. The tag line in the rebuttals is not an argument, you need to be drawing distinctions between the text of your authors and theirs and giving me reasons why your evidence or analysis answers their arguments and theirs does not answer yours and what that means to me in how I should evaluate those claims. Seem like a lot to do? Really helps if you are setting this up in the block and 1AR. Just remember that if I have to do work for you, you might not like the outcome…..

Speaker Points: Some have asked me about how I assign speaker points. So the things I think about when I am assigning speaker points are (in no particular order), clarity, delivery, style, strategy, success, how bad you made my flow look (I flow unlike you. My flow is how I decide the debate, the more painful you make my life the more pain I inflict on your speaker points. Line-by-line argumentation is good, and is a dying art. Note: this is about the umpteenth reference in my judging philosophy to flowing...it might be important!

Gabe Cook Barstow School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:24 AM CST

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

Lauren Crenshaw Gateway 6th Grade Center None

Brandon Dial Hire None

Matheno Frazier-Bey Hire

Alison Graham Hire None

Amanda Greenwood Hire None

Isaac Lainez Sumner Academy Middle School

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 5:15 PM EST

I've actively done policy debate for 7 years, volunteered as an assistant coach for 4 years, and just recently started IDPA at UNC Charlotte. I've also done speech for 4 years (+ college) and have done everything from extemp to HI to POI so I'm very familiar with all the events.

For file share, I prefer https://speechdrop.net/ to e-mail chain, but I'll do whatever y'all want. (If you're scared to use speechdrop, don't be. It's super simple and intuitive and I can help with the set-up).

LD:

I did LD once in high-school, so I'd consider myself a flay judge in LD. In general, I think both sides should have good structure to their speeches, and have considerable clash especially with analytical arguments. Not a fan of shadow-extensions, at least say the author, date, and tag of what you're extending (though the warrants are equally as important to extend). I can handle speed, just don't spread (I don't think that's a thing in LD, Right?!) I'd like to be walked through both cases as if I was a toddler, even though I will probably be familiar with most of the arguments including philosophies, though I will genuinely struggle with technical words and jargon.

Policy Debate:

Tech or truth?:

Im very middle ground. I want structure to speeches, and if one team drops arguments from the other side I am inclined to vote them down. However reading 10 cards is not very engaging nor helpful, id much rather have arguments explained to me than read at me. 10 crappy cards can be beat by one good analytical if properly executed. Also, don't just say the author when extending, I need the warrant/tagline too.

Theory/spreading:

By the end of my career I found myself running theory more and more and I am a fan when it's applicable. When the AFF (or neg) starts being abusive, I think the neg should call them out, even if it doesn't lead to the main argument by the 2NR (or 2AC). I'm also more inclined to vote on Theory if it has a tangible impact on the plan. (For example, if you're running a specificity argument, don't just talk about how it's unfair in the debate, but how lack of specificity may hurt policy implementation and/or solvency).

In terms of spreading: I do not think spreading is good for debate. If both teams agree to spread, I can handle it, but please ask your opponents if spreading is ok. If one team doesn't want spreading, please respect that decision, and if you decide to spread anyway, and the other team reads spreading bad, Ill find it hard not to be compelled.

Policy:

Debated mostly policy Affs so I'm very familiar with technical policy stuff and jargon. Here's a rundown of my feelings on args:

Case: love me a good case debate, turns can make or break a round. The Aff needs to defend all stock issues (ESPECIALLY SOLVENCY) to have a chance of victory. Don't forget that 1AC cards cross-apply to off-case cards 99% of the time. I believe the neg has the right to read new case cards in the 2NC or 1NR, though I would prefer them to either be extensions of the 1NC or answers to new cards by the 2AC.I will discount any new DA, K, CP, and/or T brought up in the 2NC or 1NR; if you didn't mention it in the 1NC it isn't in the debate.

DA: LOVE DA'S, one of the best args out there. The link/internal link debate is always make or break for the DA, but UQ answers can also stop a DA. Impact answers alone are not enough to win against a DA.

CP: Solid off-case position, I'm ok with PICs but can be convinced they're not fair. In terms of condo, I think the neg can drop the CP whenever but shouldn't run more than 2 counter advocacies. The perm isn't necessarily dropped if the CP is dropped.

I will vote on Topicality if it is either A) inherently clear the AFF is un-topical, or B) the AFF fails to adequately answer T. Please don't use T as a time-suck and ensure you have all the components including: definitions, violations, standards, and voters.

Ks:

On the neg I'm very open to the K debate, though not too familiar with lit outside of generics, I'll probably need an explanation. Links can serve as case turns and can independently win rounds, but the alt is the #1 part of the K.

On AFF im pretty cool with K Affs. I don't really care for T or policy/state good args unless mishandled, Method v Method is the Negs best bet to win. I'm not a fan of rage politics, especially if anything is directed towards the opponents as opposed to the system/institution.

However everything can change!: If you explicitly give me a framework/role of the ballot, I will vote on your interpretation based on clash with the other team, not with my own paradigm. Please understand that while I have my preferences, they’re not static. You have the power to convince me and I implore both teams to exercise this power.

Do not hesitate to ask any clarifying questions if needed. Thanks :)

Ava Levin Barstow School None

Desmond Mason Hire

Jenida McIntyre Hire None

Terrie Miller Lincoln College Preparatory Academy (Middle School)

Cameron Mount Foreign Language Academy

Ebony Perkins-Tolbert Gloria Willis

josephine (jodi) reno Central Middle School None

Jane Rinehart Hire

Brian Rubaie Hire

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 2:53 PM EST

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Jayden Sampat Barstow School

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 3:43 AM CST

Jayden Sampat

they/them

jsamdebate@gmail.com

email chain >> speech drop

Wake Forest '28

Barstow '24, currently helping coach there

note for novices - you dont need to wait outside the room until i get there, just go on in to the room

done debate since middle school (though that doesnt really count) done K, T, and DA/CP strats, comfortable with anything except heavy process cp debates - not saying you cant read it but i will have a hard time evaluating its competitiveness sometimes.

if you have any accommodation requests email me or ask me before the round. also email me abt any questions you have before the round. also, side note. if your opponents ask you not to spread, dont spread. dont know why you think thats a choice. AND teams who dont spread, if one partner cant spread, neither should be spreading. i have been involved in too many non-spreading debates where one partner doesnt spread and the other does and i think its unfair that the other team can't spread at all

update for IP topic: I am somewhat familiar with this topic but I only judged at camp this summer so maybe err on the side of over explaining (esp if ur running a very niche aff)

TLDR

you do you. I enjoy all arguments and styles and i will evaluate everything evenly as long as it isn't a harmful arg (i will give u a loss and tank your speaks for any intentional misgendering, racism, queerphobia, sexism, ableism, zionism etc). lmk if there's any way I can help make debate a good learning experience for you.

ideally, don't insert cards - i would prefer you read them.

basic things

-most of what I've learned is from Lucia Scott, Alaina Walberg, Gabe Cook, Maeve, and all the Wake Forest coaching staff. also shout out to all the college k v k debates we've had (kentucky AE) bc you all taught me so much.

-speed is good, but clarity is better. if you can spread really fast, go for it, but make sure you are clear. i will clear you 3x before I give up flowing.

-open cx is fine, but I don't want you to not let your partner ask any questions during their cx

-JUDGE INSTRUCTION. please spend a few seconds in your rebuttal speeches writing out my ballot for me. what impact should i put first in this debate and why? if u don’t do this then idk what i should evaluate first so even if it’s just a little bit, pls do it.

-ask questions after the round. i want to help you understand things. also feel free to email me after the round for any questions

-if you are going to be disrespectful about my decision, take it to ur coach. if u bring it to me and start yelling, i will now be a grumpy and sleep deprived college student. im sure you know how well that will go.

Preferences:

have fun. debate is an educative space where we all can learn, pls don’t ruin that for some by being disrespectful, misogynistic, homophobic, etc (i will fill out my ballot then and there and give u lowest possible speaks). I do my best to write out every piece of feedback, so have a bit of patience if i take a while with the rfd. doin my best here folks

Topicality:

I love topicality. especially against clearly untopical affs. its so fun. do what you want to do here and ill sit back and enjoy the show. also love t substantial if you do the math on it fr

Love a good disad debate. Also love when an aff straight turns it. any da is fun to judge but these ideally should have a cp attached to them to absorb any risk of aff solvency

Down for a good cp/da strat, make sure u have a net benefit. dont forget sufficiency framing and make sure you impact turn the other adv if going for an adv cp. not the best for a bunch of process cps, i get lost in theory debates pretty easily esp if you are spreading theory blocks. that being said, i do think counterplan competition is important and vital to debates so pls be competitive at the bare minimum.

Kritiks:

my favorite part of debate but also probably means i hold you to a higher threshold of explanation than i do on other off case positions. am most familiar with cap, queer theory, bioptx, and death k, but as long as u explain ur worldview im good. if you are going to go for the k in the last speech, please know what your alternative does - unless ur going for fw and kicking the alt. Im also down to judge a good framework debate tho. make sure you do impact calc on here because that will factor greatly into my decision esp if the aff goes for extinction ow and case first

Case:

i know this is on everyone’s paradigm but case is underrated, and i think all teams should do more work here. i love watching impact turn debates on case, and will definitely vote on them. i also will vote neg on presumption, assuming the neg successfully constructs those args out in the 2nr. in HS i gave a 5 min 1nr on case, and loved it.

K Affs

love k affs, normally run these or soft left affs. try to stick to one theory of power or at least make it coherent. dont defend too much. all that said, i really enjoy debating k affs and judging them so have fun with it.

quick note for frame subtraction - i will vote on it but i do not understnad the differnece between reading multiple piks and reading fs. do with that what you will

Ks v K Affs

my favorite debates. these are hard for judges to adjudicate sometimes, sans impact calc on the link debate. a lot of teams forget impact calc on these debates and i think its crucial to have.

fw v k affs

fine for these debates, just dont be violent. i will vote on fw if you win it. you do you, as long as you do it well. i think ssd and tvas are detrimental to certain k affs so keep that in mind, they are great at absorbing offense. make sure your tva is topical? please? too many of these arent topical like hello?

limits are fake and gay, and a social construct? - Mae Dingley 2024 (yes, i will vote neg on limits if you win it lol)

Speaker Points

I start with a 28.5 for speaks and move up or down from there. 29 means I think you should break, 29.5+ means I think you should be in late elims.

i probably wont give u a 30 unless its your last high school debate and you tell me and are deserving of it

Jonathan Santos Sumner Academy Middle School

Michael Scheetz Carl B Bruce

Owen Snyder Barstow School

Carl Stafford University Academy Middle School

Login to Tabroom

DKC Eastgate Middle School Tournament

2024 — kC, MO/US

CX Judges Paradigm List

Judges