David Mr Bill Williams Forensics Invitational NIETOC
2025 — Newton, KS/US
Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAssistant Coach - Maize South High School
2 years policy debate, plus 8+ years judging policy
4 years forensics having competed in every event except LD & PFD and specializing in Oration and Informative
ROAD MAP YOUR SPEECHES. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE GOING ON THE JOURNEY.
DEBATE POLICY, NOT THEORY IN POLICY DEBATE. I CARE ABOUT THE CASE, NOT THE ETHICS.
email for chain: fcaster@usd266.com
Right off the rip, Speech Drop time is prep time. Make sure you keep your prep running until the file is in the Speech Drop. This is why prep was increased to 8 minutes so I want to make sure all teams are following this rule.
I am a policy maker judge at heart. I want my debaters to present a plan for how to solve an issue that is grounded in reality. Don't argue theory about how the world is broken, tell me what actual plans we can put in place to fix a problem. On the neg team side, either show me the squo is good, that the aff plan itself is flawed, or come to me with a better plan than the aff. I just want actual tangible options to vote on, not a bunch of theory. Save that for LD.
Because of this DAs and CPs are the keys to my ballot, along with some on-case attacks. I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both sides (the plan for the aff and the squo or CP for the neg depending on what route they take) and then decide which one weighs out better. As long as the pros outweigh the cons then I will likely vote for you, though that is not always the case cause as we know each round is unique and nuanced, but that is a general guideline that will lead you to be successful with me as a judge.
One note on CPs, pick ONE and run with it. I really dislike multiple CPs being ran in round, namely cause it comes off as a scatter shot and disorganized attack hoping that the aff just drops one. If you want to run multiple CPs make sure to bundle them under one umbrella and present it as a clear and cohesive plan.
I do not like speed to be used as a weapon. I understand in debate the pace of speaking will be picked up to get all the info in, but if I ever feel that a debater is attempting to speak quickly just so that the opposing team will not hear an argument and then not be able to respond to it, I will judge that critically and penalize you for that. In short, DO NOT SPREAD.
I appreciate when debaters "get off the cards". I want to see debaters analyze their cards and break down their arguments and try to connect with me on a human level rather than just rattle off facts and figures for the duration of their speech.
I am open to Topicality arguments but I want them to be specific. Don't just run T cause you feel like it and don't argue that your definition of "the" is better than someone else's. If you run T it needs to be specific and show that the affirmative is actually harming the competitiveness of the round and being abusive.
For Kritiks, I am not the biggest fan. If you are going to run a K it better be strong and it must tie directly into an overall argument on why the specific aff plan is bad and further perpetuates the issue. In short, I judge very harshly on these and require them to have a strong connection to the topic and the aff for me to vote for them. If not then I just feel you are using them to avoid debating the policy of the round, which goes against what I feel policy debate is designed for.
TL;DR - I want policy to be debated in policy debate. Help me understand the pros and cons of your position in the round and show me how voting for you leads to a larger positive than voting for the other side. Keep things rooted in reality and avoid theory as much as you possibly can.
I worked in radio for 8 years before transitioning to education so I value good communication skills in a round and being able to connect with people as I have spent a chunk of my life honing that skill. Your evidence is important but your ability to properly convey it to me is just as important. I want to see you communicate your intentions of your arguments and where you stand on the issues in the round.
As a reminder this is an educational activity and we are all people just trying to get better and learn things. I understand debate in its very nature is confrontational, but remember that your opponents are fellow human beings just like you and should be treated with respect. Try to avoid being argumentative in rounds and keep it loose.
At the end of the day just have fun!
Hello young debater looking at this paradigm moments before speaking to me, as the kids say, IRL. I look forward to seeing your absolute BEST round.
I am a veteran coach (I coach in a time BEFORE computers!), and tend to weigh argumentation and presentation skills equally in round. I am slightly hard of hearing so speaking at a comfortable level is preferable.
I would prefer to keep an accurate/organized flow and would ask for your help in providing roadmaps/signposting and remembering that as a judge, I do not have all of the evidence in front of me. Keep me in the round by communicating your order and arguments clearly.
Thank you for reading this. Do your best.
I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.
I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.
Important:
-
My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.
-
I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.
-
I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.
-
I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.
-
Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.
-
I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.
-
Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.
-
I will vote on topicality if necessary.
- I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
- I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
- I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
- I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.
If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.
Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!
My experience:
-Competitor @ Remington HS 2013-2016 (Policy, primarily speech focused IEs)
-Competitor @ Sterling College 2016-2020 (IPDA, platform speeches + extemp)
-Coach @ Ashland HS (a.c. 2021, h.c. 2022-23; IEs only, but judged a few policy rounds here and there)
-Coach @ Nickerson HS (a.c 2018-2020, h.c 2023- present; Policy, Congress, all IEs, some LD and BQ)
2-Speaker Policy:
Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.
What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.
I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.
New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.
Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.
How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.
How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.
How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think I'm in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(
How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)
Finally, debate is an educational and professional activity (even if we're here because we think it's fun). When I'm deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer your arguments and analysis's impact on the round more than how pretty a speaker you are. However, kindness is a voting issue. If you do something that is extremely rude or offensive to another debater (it doesn't matter which team!) I cannot and will not reward you with a high rank or the win. I like to see debate rounds. I don't like to see bullying. This activity provides an AWESOME opportunity to create connections with other people. Do not let the heat of the moment take that away from 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.
Debated (college policy) at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached (college policy) at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).
I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)
If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.
My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.
This means judge instruction, if you are wanting a particular method of evaluation for the debate, then you need to know the debate theory behind why those practices of round evaluation were utilized when they were. Therefore, don't assume I'm a stock issues judge, explain what it means to evaluate the round as a stock issues judge and then explain why its the preferred method of evaluation. If you want a policy maker, explain what that means and why its the preferred method of evaluation. Offense/Defense, explain. Educator/Scholar, Explain. Too many debaters (and more so, their coaches) believe there is one right way to debate. I don't believe that is the case, I believe that every method of debate and round evaluation has benefits and drawbacks. To believe there is a single way to debate is knowing just enough to be dangerous to themselves and others. To put it differently, it is not my job to have an "ideal" debate, and the loser is decided by being furthest from the ideal. My job is to evaluate the debate as per the request of the debaters.
I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them (see previous paragraph) I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated
I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.
Policy arguments are fine by me.
Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.
Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.
Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against Kritik teams.
Framework on the negative for me can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version helps prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.
One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.
With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments
I vote on a stock-issue paradigm, in which stock issues that carry through constructives will probably determine the ballot.
I strongly recommend off-time road maps and frequent summary/recap. These skills are so important in life, especially the ability to summarize someone else's perspective to check one's understanding.
I have warmed to off-case in the past year, so let 'em rip. It's unlikely for me to vote on off-case or style alone. Stocks still count significantly. Here's a twist: if stocks aren't your thing on neg, consider a well-conceived and well-executed CP or K. I appreciate calculated risk-taking when the only alternative is mediocrity on the stock issues.
I have grown to love debate and love the young people who invest their Saturdays. I coach some (beloved!) students who are perpetually excited, behave badly, and need to learn ... moderation. Some of you might need to learn it also, so that you have it as an option instead of fighting/flighting/freezing throughout life. I am a judge who might try to "help" your coach teach moderation to you. Truculent, surly, adversarial behavior by debaters bums me out and can cost the ballot. Shouting hurts my ears.
Debate is worthy of the time we all spend. A problem with debate is that it tends to reward disagreement. In life we must find places of agreement, especially when we are competing and it is hard to agree. I award ballot credit for the team that seeks a place of agreement with an opponent, and expresses it at some point in the round. And by "agreement" I mean: sincere agreement followed by "and," not superficial agreement followed by "but."
Thanks everyone!
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.