Lions and Tigers Invitational
2024 — Goddard, KS/US
IE's Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFOR POLICY DEBATE:
I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.
I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.
Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.
DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.
FOR LD DEBATE:
I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.
I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.
That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.
***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***
FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:
Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.
I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.
Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.
Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.
Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.
Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.
LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.
Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.
Be polite and have fun!
Update July 1, 2024.
GENERAL THOUGHTS
I am the former debate, forensics and speech teacher and coach at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.
In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.
Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.
Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!
POLICY (CX) DEBATE
I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.
Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.
Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!
PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE
Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE
If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.
INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP
Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.
INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS
I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!
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.
POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.
EXPERIENCE:
-
4-year high school debater
-
Adept hired judge
-
Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons
-
Mild knowledge of world politics
-
Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget
-
Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation
SPEED:
-
Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech
-
Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech
-
Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win
-
If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped
CROSS-EX:
-
Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you
-
Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building
-
While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote
-
Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements
HARMS:
-
Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO
-
I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.
-
Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.
INHERENCY:
-
Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO
-
Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear
-
If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that
-
Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is
SOLVENCY:
-
Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label
-
Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX
-
DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card
ADVANTAGES:
-
I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.
-
Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance
-
Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so
PLAN:
-
I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.
-
I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague
-
Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX
TOPICALITY:
-
I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument
-
STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them
-
Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it
DISADVANTAGES:
-
I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs
-
Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence
-
Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case
-
Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones
VAGUENESS:
-
Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target
-
Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole
COUNTERPLANS:
-
PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something
-
Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round
-
Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job
KRITIKS:
-
I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not
-
I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution
-
Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that
PET PEEVES:
-
I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”
-
Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found
-
Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend
-
Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification
-
I dislike ad hominem attacks
Stock issues. T should only be what’s actually off topic. I don’t like Ks unless they’re actually applicable. Academic problems that aren’t likely to be real life issues have no interest for me. I’d rather it be concrete, undeniable, and undeniably important.
I am slightly hard of hearing, so please speak clearly (especially with masks) and with a decent volume. Speeding/spreading means I can’t understand you. If I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.
I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.
1 year of high school debate experience many years ago but I have since forgotten most of it. I have been actively judging debate since 2021 and do understand stock issues but am no overly technical. I have no preferences for the round or what argument types are used.
Speed: Moderate
Resolution of substantive issues is more important that communication skills
Tabula Rasa
Counterplans acceptable if justified and consistent with other elements of the negative approach
Topicality is fairly important
Hi! My name is Prakriti, she/her. Head coach at Wichita East High school.
Add me to the chain: prakriti.ravianikode@gmail.com. I'm also fine with SpeechDrop.
Policy:
General--
I will not evaluate anything that happens outside the round.
I follow along the doc - if I see you clipping its an automatic L.
Speed is fine, please add analytics to the doc if you're going fast. If I can't understand you, I will clear you! If I still cannot understand you, I will start dropping the speaks.
If you have any other questions about specific arguments please ask before the round.
I don't like case overviews. Just debate down your flow.
I flow cross-ex! I also stop paying attention to cross-ex and speeches once the timer goes off.
I'll vote for anything. Tech over truth. You should be well-versed in your arguments. Nothing annoys me more when debaters stand up for speeches after the 2ac and just read cards/analytics straight down without interacting with your opponents' arguments. Please use judge instruction and tell me exactly how I should evaluate the round.
Kritik--
More familiar with policy args, as far as K's, I'm familiar with Cap and Fem. Other than that you should over-explain. I am not the best with theory so I will need clear judge instruction and voters for K theory args. Also if you are just using jargon without explaining it, I won't understand what you mean and I cannot vote for it. I want to know what the world of the alt looks like and why I should prefer it to the aff.
Topicality--
I default to competing interps. Explain what your model/interp means for the topic. That will convince me more than generic blocks. Pls slow down on the T flow.
DA--
Impact calc is important!! I evaluate the link level of the DA first and weigh it with the impacts of the aff. I am not very familiar with economic literature. If the 2NR is the Econ DA, please give me a story on what exactly the economy will look like in the world of the aff/DA.
I'm a head debate and forensics coach.
Debate: Steps for judging.
- I look at stock issues first on the affirmative side, HIPS Case (Harms, Inherency, Plan text, Solvency)
- Then look to prove your plan is Topical if the Negative brings a logical Topicality issue to the board.
- I look to see if the Aff Case has more benefits(ADvantages) than DisAdvantages.
- Most of my Reasons For Decisions (RFD) are based on the aff proving the problem is there, they can solve it without harm coming from the plan. Statistics will help here.
- If the Negative disproves a stock issue, the topicality of the plan is unclear, or proves a disadvantage of the plan happening, the Negative wins.
Forensics:
Speech:
- Organized logical thoughts and structured speeches.
- Wants to communicate to their audience (Before, during, and after the performance)
- Presents, Proves and Explains a Thesis (Opinion about life)
Acting / Interpretation:
- Presents a teaser that develops an exposition
- Transitions to an introduction that presents a theme (life lesson)
- Gives strong supported emotional reactions to the text and situation through blocking, voice, expression, and transitions.
- The text is presented as a mini-plot line with rising action (beginning), climax (middle), and resolution (end).
I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.
I default policy maker.
I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.
K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.
DA - Huge voter with me.
Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.
Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.
As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Williams%2C+David+J.
Name David J. WIlliams
School; Newton HS Kansas
# of years debated in HS_0 What School NOPE
# of years debated in College_0 What College/UniversityNope
Currently a (check all that apply) xHead HS Coach _Asst. HS Coach
College Coach _College Debater
Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate
# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10_
What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?
_xPolicy Maker _Stock Issues _Tabula Rasa
_Games Player _Hypothesis Tester ___Other (Explain)
What do you think the Aff burdens should be?
I think the aff should affirm the resolution and be topical and have the basic INH/PLAN/ADV/S structure.or something similar. I am willing to listen to any aff position but I am mainly a policy guy but a K aff is fine if you can explain it well enough. I won’t pretend to understand your position, aff or neg, so please prepare a presentation that balances a quicker than normal speech but not spewing and wheezing. Don’t speed through your 1ac and quit with 90 seconds to go.
What do you think the Neg burdens should be?
I think the neg may choose to debate the case or go with a generic position but I am going to vote on offense. I hate topicality and most theory arguments mainly because I hate flowing it. IF the aff is topical, even a little, then don’t run T. I wont flow it the way you want me to and I will default more to reasonability. If is reasonable then I wont vote against them on T. If the aff is not topical then run T. I will punish affirmatives who are non-topical. IF the aff is unreasonable then Neg will win even if I am terrible flowing the T.
How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?
Slow tags/authors and quicker on card content. If I cannot understand you I will say clear. I prefer a slower style of debate that still uses the flow. My flow will be accurate(if you let me) with a slower round. Faster rounds will be my best guess. I would say slow down and be persuasive and signpost for me.
How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?
Generics with good links are fine. I need to know the story of your arguments. If I cannot remember the story then I can’t voter for it.
How I feel about case debates?
I LOVE A GOOD CASE DEBATE…but I don’t require it.
Flashing is prep time. Flashing is not moving all your cards to a speech doc. THIS IS PREP TIME AND SPEECH PREP> IF you jump a speech to the other team please do so quickly. I believe the last step of every speech should be the flash. Once the flash drive is given to the other team..Prep starts for other team if the non speaking team wants to hold up speech to see if it is on jump drive. Prep is over for the non speaking team when they indicate they are ready. IF the speech did not make it or if the format is difficult to use. I will grant a grace period of 1 mintue to resolve the issue. Laptops are normal for me. I don’t want your face buried in your screen.
Experience
4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005
4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011
7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)
4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres
Policy:
I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.
I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.
I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.
LD:
I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).
PFD:
I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.
Email: dyates@usd313.org
I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.
Experience:
Head Coach @ Buhler High School
- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023
- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018
- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.
- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.
I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.
• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.
• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.
• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.
• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R
• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.
• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.
• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.