Introductions

Hello, my name is Gage Giffin and I'm assistant coach for Sedgwick High School's Debate and Forensics Team. This is my first year coaching, but I debated in high school for three years and my partner and I were the 321A Policy Debate Champions for 2023.

I know the effort it takes to be here. I commend you all for the hard work and dedication to be here. That said, we are here above all to have fun. Have a good round and may the odds be ever in your favor...

Policy

Judging Style - I do not have one style really. I go back and forth between stock issues and policymaker. Your key to my vote is to explain your arguments and explain how I should vote. Run anything you want, but at the end of the day, explain it to me like I'm a toddler. Why do your arguments beat the opposition and why should I vote for you?

Speed - I would say I prefer a medium speed to listen to. However, I can manage with faster debates if that is what I'm given.

Evidence - If possible, please provide evidence to me. I enjoy reading along with the debate.

Kritik - I've never liked Ks. There's your warning if you run those. If you decide to, take the time to fully explain your K and what it means for this debate. Otherwise, I will not vote on it.

Topicality - Topicality is a big issue for me. You have to be within the limitations of your resolved statement. To the NEG though, that only goes so far. If you try to run a T on general words like "the", you better have a good explanation to back it up.

Congress

My style and beliefs for judging Congress are still forming as I get more experience with the category. Overall, keep up the clash and relevance. You should be engaging in the chamber, making your voice heard, and convincing me that you could be a real senator or representative for the United States. Don't just say anything though. Use critical questions and arguments instead of just wasting everyone's time with pointless or repeated arguments. There is a lot on the docket and too little time. So make every bit of time worth it!!

**If you have any questions please ask me!!! If your question isn't on here it is because no one's ever asked me before. BE THE FIRST!

I was a former PF-er, Extemp-er, and congressional debater. Reading this paradigm will greatly increase the chance that I give you the win (especially if your opponent doesn’t read it). I will get upset if you ask me for my paradigm (because there’s a lot), but I’m more than happy to clarify specific stuff. I’m a lay with most speech events, so sorry in advance. I have general debate paradigms and specific event paradigms.

General debate:

1. Spreading is for cowards. If I don’t understand you, I’m not going to flow. If both teams spread, the team that spreads the least gets the most speaks (and will most likely win).
2. DO NOT SPEAK OVER TIME. I’ll start ignoring you and think about my wonderful mother nagging me to do chores. The longer you speak over time, the more annoyed I’ll get.
3. Every time you don’t signpost, weigh or have voters a small puppy dies. In addition, if you reframe, or clip cards the dreams of hundreds of small children perish. Luckily, if you meta-weigh (probability > magnitude), a small kitten gets adopted into a loving home.
4. Tech > Truth. I have the right to choose the side that persuades me the most. In addition, debaters must meet the burden of proof, clash, and persuasion for me to give them a win.
5. I don’t disclose after round. If you ask me the other person will get a default win.
6. Friv theory, no. It’s annoying when debaters complain too much. Ks needs to have solvency and topicality. (Unless you are doing funny friv, then it might slide)

7. Please time yourself; however, I am the official timekeeper. Do not argue with me on time, or you’ll just get a default loss.

8. At the end of the day, the debate should be fun, educational, and respectful. You are incredibly talented and NSDA was intended for you to show off that talent to the world.

PF:

Public Forum debate is a style of debate in which a mass of people, the "public" can enter a "forum". A forum for the public should be easily accessible to the average person, thus I judge this debate as such. evidence should be easy to view & understand by both sides. Aslong as that is mentioned in speech and/or agreeable between teams, there will be no issue.

1. PF is card-heavy, create an email chain with your opponents before the round or not, just be amicable and willing to give cards. I have the right to ask for cards (remember, if they’re clipped the dreams of hundreds of children will perish thanks to you).

2. The rebuttal speech needs to cover the flow and have impact analysis. You have four minutes, use them!

3. 1st speakers that collapse (focus on a few arguments, and weigh) in their summary speech will steal my heart, and force me to give them very high speaks. You should also have comparative world weighing in the summary speech (crystallization speech is another good speech for that).

4. The crystallization speech needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is mostly dependent on the voters alone. If you don’t have clear voters (or none at all) not only will you lose the round, but small puppies will die (refer back to general debate paradigms).

5. If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I have every right to stop it. In addition, if your cx turns into a rebuttal speech, I’ll end it.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

Overall, a better speech wins, I first and foremost judge on content

1. Extemp values thinking on the fly, I favor speeches that include TOPICAL and TAME humor, I enjoy a dark joke. But that SHOULD NOT be paired with a Yemeni civil war.

2. When push comes to shove and 2 speakers have equally good speeches, I do judge on the smaller important distinguishing skills, like the walk, the hand gestures, the pacing, etc.

3. When talking about your points I want to see impacts or how it may affect me or the world around me.

4. I count and check sources, if I catch you making them up, you’ll be bumped down a placement.

5. I value uniqueness of a speech, if you find roundabout consequences or theory id love that to be included as extemp values thinking outside the box, just don’t be frivolous. You’ll be favored.

Congressional Debate:

1. Congress is all about persuasion and substantive argumentation. If you spread, you are failing in every aspect.

2. PO must follow basic parli pro and must make the session a fun environment for everyone.

3. Just like any debate event, I expect arguments to be responded to. Each speech has an expectation to respond to arguments from speeches prior. Even if someone gives the greatest constructive in the world during the last speech of a bill, I’ll give them a low score (they need to respond to previous arguments).

4. To get a high ranking in the chamber you need to engage (speeches, questions influence on chamber).

5. If your questions suck, I’m going to place you lower than someone who doesn’t question, as what you add to the debate has been touched on already and all you do is waste time.

LD:

1. The framework is everything in LD. the framework needs to have a clear thesis and connect to all of the contentions (or I can’t weigh it). I expect strong v/vc clashes throughout the round. Otherwise, you turn LD into PF for one, yuck!

2. Broad values like morality and justice remind me of hangnails. I hate hangnails, and I will hate your case, and probably give you the loss (values like these tell me nothing about your moral blueprint for the round).

3. The impact analysis should all revolve around the framework, rather than a cost-benefit analysis method like PF or CX.

4. I hate counter-plans in LD. If you want to run them, policy debate would love to have you.

5. I judge less on evidence and more on phil and theory for LD.

Policy

1. My first general rule applies, especially to CX. Cowards don’t deserve to win. DO NOT SPREAD!

2. I don’t want people in public flashing me, and I don’t want teams to flash cases to each other. Please share THE ENTIRE THING or make it ACCESSIBLE.

3. I judge on stock issues. If neg is able to win on any stock issue they win. Unless they run a counter plan. Then the round is just a comparative analysis on ads and disads. Which is not bad either.

4. In terms of stock issues, topicality is the most important for me. If I see an off-topic set col, I’ll drag your desk outside of the room and let you think about your actions.

5. Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

Brandon Haynes, he/him, coaching for Aquinas (STA) and attending KU (not debating). If you have any questions please feel free to ask!!!

TLDR: Debate well! I care about evidence a ton and as a result I either will not or will heavily struggle to evaluate claims that do not have warrants. I flow on paper and will need you to go about 60-70 percent of your top speed; basically, I really need taglines, authors, and analytics as clear as you can and a second or two when switching between flows. I don't care how fast you read cards so long as you aren't clipping. I am down for any debate you want to have, whether that's policy vs. K, policy vs. CP/DA, planless vs. T, or planless vs. K. I will not judge kick your counterplan or alternative unless you make that argument.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations; I don't think reasonability is good writ large unless you are genuinely center of the topic.

Counterplans: I will not judge kick your counterplan unless you win that argument in the 2NR. I don't care about textual competition, and I cannot articulate why that means a team should lose. Tell me what the net benefit is in the 1NC if you are reading multiple counterplans/disads. Send perm texts if it's not PDB.

Disadvantages: Impact calculus is so important here! I care A TON about internal links and if you can articulate a story. Contextualize your links to the AFF even if they are specific. If you win a link, I don't see how the permutation is an option.

Kritiks: I'm good for these on both the AFF and the NEG. On the NEG: specific links > generic, framework is the most important part of the flow (if you win research > consequences I won't weigh the plan or evaluate alternative solvency), know your literature base, I'm neutral on long overviews, and explain how the link causes the impact. On the AFF: Your AFF should not be 7 minutes of pre-empts to T-FWK and presumption. You should be in the direction of the topic. I need a coherent overview of the AFF by the end of the 2AC. I care A TON about method solvency and it's the most important of these debates to me.

T-FWK: I don't think T is genocidal or silencing voices. Please don't read fairness as an impact or internal link; it actually makes zero sense to me as an argument. The best impact to me is predictable limits.

Theory: I always default to reject the argument unless it's condo. I think condo is a good argument and makes sense as a 2AR when multiple advocacies are extended into the block.

Hello - Is this thing on?

What did the Zen Buddhist say to the hot dog cart vendor?

Make me one with everything.

The Zen Buddhist gives the hot dog cart vendor $5 for a $3 hot dog. He asks the vendor, "Where's my change?"

The vendor says, "True change comes from within. Now go be the change you want to see in the world."

What do you call the wife of a hippy?

Mississippi

Do you know the last thing my grandfather said before he kicked the bucket?

"Grandson, watch how far I can kick this bucket."

For the person who stole my thesaurus, I have no words to express my anger.

I have been and English teacher for 30 years - I have judged debate (as an assistant Coach) for 6 years. Therefore, I like reason and intelligent argument debaters who have researched enough to know what they are talking about.

SPREADING IS STUPID.

I prefer actual conversational debate. Please use speechdrop.

I am basically a TABULA RASA judge. Counterplans, kritiks, disadvantages, topicality - it is all possibly a winning move if it is done well.

I respect debaters who know their evidence well and can concisely clarify during cross-x.

A big plus for actually understanding how government works so that you can formulate a reasonable plan/counterplan - know what the IRS is actually responible for - know the powers ennumerated to the federal government and therefore what is relegated to the states

I generally do not enjoy nuclear annihilation arguments - unless they link clearly. Sometimes it does, but most of the time it does not.

pamela.williams@usd428.net

I competed in high school debate in a small 3A school for four years in the late 80’s and competed in college for 2 years in the 90s. I am currently an assistant coach after leaving competitive speech for many years.

I know debate, but my experience is from 20+ years ago, and therefore I prefer an older style of debate.

Important:

1. It is essential to me that you are kind, courteous and respectful to one another and to me. Courtesy is far too undervalued and often overlooked, but I will vote against teams that are discourteous.
2. I must be able to understand what you are saying to me in order to vote for you. If you have good articulation and enunciation when you are speaking quickly, then go for it. That being said, I will not give you points for just saying the most words in the time you have.
3. I expect you to clash. If you have not directly related your evidence block to the argument of the other team, you are not debating. Reading of blocks without making those connections is not clashing and therefore not debating. I am looking for summarizing and explanation. Prove to me that you understand the evidence you are using well enough to explain why I should care about what it says.
4. Don’t Lie. Do not try to read evidence and then claim it says something else in your summary or explanation. Do not try to cut a few words or phrases that completely change the meaning of the evidence. Do not leave off the last half of the card because it is problematic for your case. If there is an issue with how the evidence is explained, or you are trying to twist the meaning, I will give you a 4 and a loss. Don’t lie by omission or false representation. Use strong, analytical arguments and you won’t have to lie with your evidence.
5. Stacking arguments in an attempt to overwhelm the other team is not good debate. I will flow the round and therefore I will notice when arguments are dropped, but I will also notice when arguments are superfluous.
6. I want you to signpost your arguments.
7. In the final rebuttals, I want you to evaluate what has occurred in the round, explain the voters and remind me why "your team” had the superior arguments.
8. I would like to be included in any email chain or evidence sharing, however unless the evidence is problematic or it seems to have been misused, I am probably not going to spend much time looking at it. (See #4, above)
9. I am not opposed to K’s or Theory arguments but I expect you to be very, very clear about how the argument links. Generic arguments generally won’t get you very far with me. Make me understand how the generic or theoretical argument is relevant in this particular debate or I am not going to consider it.
10. Do not present arguments in cross ex. Ask questions, get clarification, and set your partner up to clash.
11. I will vote on topicality if the argument is convincing. I am most likely to vote on stock issues and extending the arguments through. Do not drop an argument and hope I won’t notice. If an argument is dropped by the other team, remind me of that in your final rebuttals.
12. I award speaker points for strategy, understanding of the argument and your ability to explain the argument so I care about it.
13. Pronounce words correctly. If you are mispronouncing the words in your evidence, it assures me that you are not familiar with that card. Know what you are reading and be able to pronounce it.
14. Don’t be a jerk. That includes being condescending to your opponents, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
15. You have prep time. All technological maneuvers should be completed during that prep time. Do not use all your prep time, walk to the podium and then spend additional time sharing a speech or an evidence file. When you walk to the podium you should be ready to speak. Milking the clock by waiting to share your files is cheating in my opinion. I will generally time each speech as well as the prep time for myself and I will punish you for cheating the time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will try to give you good, useful feedback on the ballot as well as a clear reason for the decision. I will happily shake your hand before the round, but please don’t try to shake my hand after the round. I want to be focused on the ballot and giving feedback during that time. Be courteous to your opponents and then feel free to leave.

In summary, speed and spread alone won’t get you a W. Clash, summarize, explain, and convince me to care about YOUR position and its importance. Keep reminding me of your position. Ask me to vote for you and give me reasons to do so.

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.