Olathe EastGardner Invitational
2024 — OLATHE, KS/US
Speaking Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidearelm@usd231.com
I am impressed by anyone and everyone who accepts the challenge and steps out to compete in Debate and Forensics, so you immediately have my respect. I am definitely not your enemy; I want to see you do well.
I want to understand what you are saying. Speak as fast as you like, but be understandable and discernable. Diction, pronunciation and eloquence are a positive for me.
Be believable. If unsure of a point, sell it with confidence, precision and credibility. Remain cool under pressure. This is a trait that can be learned, and one that will benefit you greatly.
Show true evidence of listening when possible. Make your arguments and points with relevance to the resolution, your issue, as well as the opponents' viewpoint. This enhances the worthiness of your argument.
Lastly, be intense, but have fun competing.
Flay parent judge- adapt accordingly (don't spread)
Did forensics in high school
WSU '09
I majored in communication and taught public speaking for 5 years at the college level so good presentation and good etiquette is important to my ballot
I know the basis of a lot of policy oriented arguments on the circuit- but full explanation is key as always
DA's: great
CP's:great
on case: v v important
if you can't tell, my varsity debater child helped write this paradigm.
K's: I probably haven't read your literature but am up for the ideas behind kritiks. If it is necessary for a K to be ran in round it's in your best interest to run something easily digestible for an average parent judge with a lot of explanation on the link and what the alt does
I was previously a debater at Olathe South and have judged numerous rounds in the past. I do default to a Policymaker judge but I am open to hearing most arguments.
I like a clean flow above all.
Speed: I can keep up with a more rapid pace but I want to hear a round that falls below the speed of spreading.
DA: The only thing here is that I expect a clean link chain.
CP: Will listen to any CP you want to bring, although it should allow for a two sided debate.
K: Wasn't much of a K debater when I was around but if you'd like to read one I will listen to it. However, if the flow is messy or hard to follow, it will fall further down on my reasons for voting NEG and could cost you the round.
Topicality: T is great. I will listen to any and all interpretations but if you're gonna go for it, go for it full bore.
Theory: I ran a few theory arguments myself in Highschool so nothing will really surprise me here but please, if you're going to go for theory as your main voter, go all in with plenty of blocking.
Case: I love a good case debate. Solvency turns are the best. Defending case arguments in the 1AC is important when it comes to whether or not I am voting AFF at the end of the day.
Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.
Policy:
Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...
Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.
Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)
Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.
CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.
Forensics:
I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress
What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.
Overall:
The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.
Don't forget to have fun!!!
Good Luck Debaters!!!
Shawn Lawson
lawsondb8@gmail.com (Add me to the email chain)
he/they
Former Olathe East Debater (2020 - 2023)
Olathe West Assistant Coach (2023 -)
Attending KU, not debating and don't plan to.
"One always has exaggerated ideas about what one doesn't know." - Albert Camus, The Stranger
I used to try to have as short a paradigm as possible, but kept adding to it over time so I've decided on a more comprehensive approach. I'll probably change it again in a year or two to make it disgustingly long, and might even add more soppy philosophical quotes.
Top Level
- The easiest way to my ballot is clear extensions throughout the debate and rebuttals that have clear impact calc and ballot framing. If you make it easy to vote for you then I probably will. If you're unsure what a good extension looks like check out Kevin Krouse's paradigm - I have a similar threshold for extensions and they are really important to my ballot. Every time that I've made a decision and not been 100% confident in it, it is because neither team had clear extensions.
- Tech > truth unless you're being discriminatory. - Just call me judge unless there's a panel and you're calling me out specifically (which is cool and you should do if you feel it's necessary).
- No handshakes. - Don't just read backfiles at me - especially by the rebuttals you should have less blocks and more clash.
- Don't be any of the -ists in round, don't clip. If you do I will give you the lowest speaks I can.
- Give a roadmap and signpost please. Also, don't just respond to their arguments sequentially since I don't usually flow speeches straight down but instead put cards or analytics next to what they respond to - so I don't know what you're talking about when you say you're answering "their fourth argument".
- I will not vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the round, i.e. somebody saying something problematic online or alleged actions. While oftentimes the matters discussed in these arguments is very serious, I do not feel like denying somebody a ballot does anything meaningful to resolve issues. I'm here to judge whether or not the arguments I'm presented with are good - not whether or not the people in the room are good people. If it's a serious issue, please contact the tournament director.
Speed
- Generally fine with spreading, but if I clear you and you don't slow down you will not be getting good speaks and I probably won't vote for you since I can't follow your arguments.
Argument Preferences
- Tabula rasa, run whatever you want with very few exceptions. Want to read death good? Go ahead and do it, unless it's a panel and another one of the judges says not to in their paradigm, in which case I will not evaluate those arguments (though I do request that you give a content warning).
- For context I was a K debater, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm familiar with your literature and it doesn't mean that I'll do the work for you. If it helps you to know this, I'm a philosophy and political science major so I am more likely to know arguments in this area, but this shouldn't have much of an impact on what arguments you do or don't run in front of me.
- Running identity arguments without being a part of that identity group usually just seems like cooption to me. That doesn't mean you explicitly can't run these arguments against me, I'm just very unlikely to vote for you if the other team calls you out for coopting an identity group you don't belong to.
- I'd say that I'm definitely a good judge for Ks of any kind. In fact, my favorite rounds are usually K v K, though if done poorly it's my least favorite type of round. Regardless of how well you run the K, I'll probably at least have good feedback for you even if I'm frustrated - so if you feel like trying something new you may as well.
- I generally think perfcon is bad but can definitely be persuaded otherwise. Generally perfcon gets a lot harder if there's a K involved though, so my threshold for voting for you if you run something like a Cap K and Econ DA is pretty high.
- Not a fan of excessive numbers of offcase positions, especially when it's clear that there is no situation in which you'd go for half of them. If you run more than 5 off I could definitely be persuaded that new arguments in the 1AR are fine.
- There is always a win condition. No matter how behind you think you are, you should still try since the results may surprise you.
Prep
- I am not timing your prep. That being said, you should time your prep and probably also the other team's. If you suspect that they are stealing prep let me know, since I'm honestly probably going to be on my phone rotting my brain with reels during prep.
- You don't need to take prep to send a doc, but if you take too long to send a doc I will tell you to hurry up. If you are still taking a long time after I've warned you once, I will make you take prep. Unfortunately these tournaments are on a tight timeframe and it is important to respect others' time. - DO NOT STEAL PREP. If the other team is sending out a doc that does NOT mean you get free prep. If I catch you stealing prep (even if it was just a few seconds) I will cap your speaks at 25. If I catch you stealing prep repeatedly I will not vote for you.
- I advise that you use all of your prep, if you lose the round but still have some prep left over then I won't have too much sympathy.
Speaks
- DCI and TOC circuit will start out as a 27.5, which I view as an average score. Anything lower than that is below what I expect at this level, anything higher than that means you were doing at least something good. Above a 29 means that I was impressed, and I'm not in the habit of giving 30s unless I think you should easily win the tournament.
- For novice speaks are more simple - it's on a 1-4 scale so just be better than the other debaters in the round.
- Here's a couple guidelines on what I think a good speaker looks like:
- Effectively utilizes your full speech time. This does not mean to needlessly repeat yourself or stretch out your arguments, but to add as much nuance to your points as possible.
- Speaks very clearly, easy to flow. - Doesn't just read from a computer, makes solid eye contact. - Giving rebuttals without a computer, especially ending rebuttals (not at all necessary, but I'd recommend trying it sometime. The best rebuttals I've seen didn't involve a computer).
- Being funny; this could just be being friendly with the team before and during the round but is also good if you make jokes during your speeches. To the misfortune of everyone around me I find brainrot really funny so if you're as unfunny as me you'll probably do well.
- Strong yet respectful cross x, especially if you tie strong cross moments into your later speeches. This doesn't mean be aggressive, if I think you are being too aggressive then you will not be getting good speaks regardless of how well you run your arguments.
- Don't let you or your partner be dominant in every single cross x. If that happens then at least one of you will get low speaks. If you are speaking over your partner constantly then neither of you will get good speaks.
- Effective usage of prep, see above for more info.
- If you mention any reality TV show (preferably Dance Moms) during your speech then I will give you .1 speaker point. I think it's funny to make people do that and also proves that you at least glanced at my paradigm so it's vaguely justifiable.
Good luck, have fun!
-Shawn
-
I judge more on policy than stock.
I like a good debate so don't spread your opp out of the round, that is not the goal.
Speed- moderate is good. If I put down my pen (yes, I am old school that way) you are going too fast. I am old(er) and my hearing isn't what it used to be.
Road maps are important, tell me where you are going and where I should be putting your arguments.
I debated in high school and have judge many rounds since so this isn't my first rodeo.
He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com
I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged dozens of debates on the topic.
I am a better judge for topic-specific, evidence-based arguments. ASPEC, counterplans that compete off of certainty and immediacy, and impact turns which argue large portions of the population should die are not persuasive to me.
Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument.
Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.
Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.
Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.
Biggest issues in my decisions on the IP topic.
1. If you are going for a kritik, you need to contest the case OR overwhelmingly win an explicit framework argument that tells me the consequences of the plan shouldn't matter.
Contesting the case doesn't necessarily mean reading impact defense or traditional solvency arguments, but you should explain why winning your link arguments disprove or turn aff advantages. For example, if you read a China threat K with links about the plan's China war advantage, your 2NR should also include some defense to the aff's other advantage(s), provided the aff extended any of those.
Neg framework interpretations which tell me to totally ignore the consequences of the plan are an uphill battle in front of me. You are almost always better off telling me why the aff's advantages are incorrect and arguing that your impacts of the kritik outweigh, rather than telling me to ignore the aff.
2. This topic seems very big and every aff seems very confusing. I will reward specific strategies and case debating with higher speaker points.
3. I am not a great judge for planless affirmatives. If you plan on reading a planless affirmative, I should be lower on your pref sheet. It's not that I hate them, I just really struggle to understand the aff's answers topicality, presumption, or even "why should we negate your affirmative"-style arguments. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read.
Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.
You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.
I debated for four years in High School at Olathe North and am currently assistant coaching there. I have not judged a whole lot of rounds and that is due to the college classes I am also taking at Johnson County Community College and the University of Kansas.
Please share what you plan on reading
email for email chains: swansonator01 @ gmail dot com
Speak clearly especially if you plan on going fast. If you are not clear in your spread...don't spread. I care more about the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity and I also care about how they fit into the flow of the debate.
I am fine with Ks and K affs and I especially care about HOW we achieve the alt if you run a K. ex. Revolution. Also, condo is good.
I will try my best not to intervene save for if you are rude and toxic in the round. Tell me how to vote and why. Run what you want to run and not what you think I want you to run.
If you run T, make sure it is reasonable and I will most likely not vote on it unless it is dropped.