Me!:

Hello! I am Lee!

I am currently a fourth-year debater and third-year forensics competitor at Northwest High School. Don’t be afraid to ask any questions or concerns.

I am HUGE on respectfulness and being a good human being to others. I will not tolerate you being disrespectful to your opponents or me alone. Moving on to speaking. I would prefer you not to spread to the point I cannot understand a thing you say (I have auditory processing issues). However, if you want to talk a little fast I am okay with that.

I am not a fan of K's in the novice division. However I am not against you running them, just make sure they are CLEARLY states.

Counterplans: Since you are Novices I do not expect you to know everything. That being said I do only want to work on cases UNLESS you have talked about counter plans with your coach and understand them yourselves.

Disadvantages: Same thing for counter plans. ONLY RUN THEM IF YOU UNDERSTAND THEM!!!

Other than this I can’t wait to judge you guys and again DON'T be scared to ask questions!

Fine with most arguments. K's are fine, just make sure to explain them.

I dislike dropped arguments. If you intentionally drop an argument. Mention it.

I default to Stock Issues, Aff must win all Arguments to win unless I am presented with different framework.

Not the fastest at flowing so i prefer no spreading. that said you can still speak quickly but i have to have enough time to write it down

Any other clarifications or questions you have you can ask me before the round but I am generally pretty cool w/ whatever.

Flay judge

Assistant 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.

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 try to judge in a very blank slate style though I do have some arguments or argumentative guidelines I prefer over others. For my affirmative teams I like to see cohesive arguments and a logical plan presented. However the affirmative wishes to refute negative arguments is entirely up to them as long as they follow a clear and logical path.

I expect much the same from the negative team. You may decide which avenue to take in trying to take down the affirmative plan as I put equal weight behind all potential courses of attack.

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.

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'm not a stock issues judge. While stocks are important to frame a debate, I do not and will not judge solely on them. Do not rely on believing you "won" inherency/solvency/etc. to lead you to a round win. Only a clear and sound argument overall will win you a round in my eyes.

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.

If you run DAs make sure they have specific links. I'm not a big fan of generic DAs so make sure you find some way to link to the aff directly.

For Kritiks I generally am not a fan of them but if you can present one that ties to the specific round AND you run it well then I might rule in your favor, just be aware that it might be a risky play. Not to dissuade you but just to inform you.

TL;DR - I want more on-case arguments that have real world examples. I'm fine if you go off case, it just needs to be presented well and somehow swing around to providing clash in the round.

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!

I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.

Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).

I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.

As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.

If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.

Head Coach of a large 5A Program. I debated 4 years in high school and in college. Will listen to everything. Speed is fine. Tell me where to flow and how to vote.

Don't give me generic arguments without specific links. Make sure you understand the literature and explain - not a fan of endless card reading and no analysis.

Baine Dikeman

Coaching Experience

Eisenhower High School: Head Coach (since 2020)

Previously Mulvane High School:Assistant Coach (2017-2018)

Debating experience as a competitor:

3 Years High School Policy

2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas

1 Year HS PFD

This Year's Topic

As of 09.20.24, I have judged one practice round on the topic. I have researched the topic and been coaching it, but my round experience is relatively low. Keep that in mind before the round begins.

Decorum/General Procedures

Flash Time/Email Chain Time/Speech Drop time can be off time, but I would prefer we expedite these processes as much as possible.

I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep/speech time.

I prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.

I will typically deduct speaker points for haphazardly jumping around on the flow or disrespect in CX or speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.

I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites.

I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, I may miss something on the flow if you are unclear. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.

Details of Paradigm

I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.

I don't like the new Off Case in the 2NC. So, unless AFF does something pretty scummy in the 2AC, please don't run new in the 2.

On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP but remember your voters.

On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional, but make sure you have a decent net benefit.

On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I tend to vote on DAs with solid and specific links.

On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks need specific links—no generic Ks, please.

Ask me any questions for clarification.

As a judge, I am to objectively evaluate the arguments presented to me, by the standards presented to me in round to make my decision and see who has most effectively proven their case. I will be weighing based on the quality of arguments, evidence, and logical reasoning; I keep personal biases and preferences out of the debate world. I'm an open policy debater and am pretty flexible and am okay with about any speed as long as you can be clear and articulated. Roadmaps, Signposting, and Eye Contact are all important factors of a debate and go into consideration when giving speaker points.

Burden of Proof-the aff has the burden to present a compelling case that affirms the resolution, is better than the squo, and as the Neg it's your team's job to refute the aff's case and show me why I should prefer your case.

Argumentation- I will assess the strengths of the arguments presented by each team; looking for a clear, logical, and well-structured case and how you can support your contentions. You tell me and justify the quality of evidence, relevance, and how you incorporate it into the debate.

Clash- I love it! Very important to debate and the whole reason we're here! I'm looking for debaters who will engage with each other's points and directly address the issues of the debate.

Voting Issues- You should explicitly identify the reasons to vote for your side, and have evidence to back you up. Tell mewhy you deserve the vote.

Topicality-if you're going to bring it up it better be justified, have evidence to back it up, and you can tell me as the judge why it's important to me in the debate world to vote on T. If by your last speech, your the Neg and you still are going for T; you should be 100% in. T is important in the debate world and we're here for an educational and interesting debate. I want to see that.

K's- ew. If you're going to bring up a K it should be justified and you better understand it; I don't appreciate wasting a round away to Kritik's and theory in general. I believe there is always a time for those arguments, be able to identify when those times are. And PLEASE if you're going to bring it up; have the evidence with it.

I come into the debate as a neutral party and I want you guys to tell me what I should believe and why I should believe it. I will follow the rules but it's also imperative that you can call each other out and make those arguments for yourself. If there is any kind of ill-mannered comments or statements about someone based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual/gender orientation; I will immediately dock your speaker points and it could cost you the debate. The debate world is heavily reliant on logic and analytical analysis, but ethics are still an important part that comes into play and I should see them represented.

Stock Issue Judge

Senior debate student. I am a stock issues judge. Topicality is important, but it needs to be a real topicality violation. So long as I understand you, I don't mind if you speak faster.

I have been an assistant coach for Andover for 15+ years and did debate in HS. My default is Policy Maker. I am fine with speed if you are very clear, but be prepared for me to not flow nearly as details because I'm gonna be focused on actually absorbing your arguments.

K:

These are fine, but you better know how to run it well and not just use it to waste your opponents' time and kick out in the end.

Framework/T:

If you run T (which I highly encourage), make it good! It is everything in a round and, yes, grammar matters. Make it a voter and don’t drop it. Same goes for Framework for the most part.

DAs:

Have specific links to generic disads. If I start hearing the exact same DAs run over and over with literally zero changes from the last round, I know there are alt causes and I can't ignore that.

Counterplans:

Can be topical but don't have to be; also you must convince me that you absolutely cannot effectively perm. The more generic the counterplan, the less I will give it weight in the round. Convince me that this CP is actually the best alternative for the specific harms that Aff addresses.

Plan:

As a policy maker, I will take a very, very, hard look at the plan text (yes, including grammar and word choice). I don’t expect you to have answers for every single nuanced thing, but at least have basics covered (specific AoA, answers to funding, timeframe…etc.). The later into the season we get, the more I expect you to have answers to basic questions and not punt to the "my partner will bring that up in the next speech."

CX:
Yes, I will flow your answers and, yes, your answers matter. The point of CX is "clarification" and I consider it binding in the round. If you provide an answer in CX and contradict it in the next speech, I weigh this against your evidence/plan. You are the advocate for your plan, using the evidence you have gathered as a means to support your ideas. If you aren't consistent in your idea or advocacy, it undermines my confidence in the plan itself.

"It's Against the Rules of Debate":

Don’t try to run nonsense “rule violations” that aren’t actually violations as a strat. And if you try to tell me that the other team is “violating the rules of debate” be prepared for me to ask if you actually want to bring a formal complaint and stop the round.

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

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

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is a good or a bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.

Stock issues are primary.

Speak at a normal human pace.

Your arguments should clash.

Ks and CPs are high risk, high reward.

This year's topic is profoundly legalistic and technical, so don't assume I am an IP lawyer. Always good to remember that you aren't either :).

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.