Kansas Championship Series
2025 — Topeka, KS/US
DCI Silver Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hideplease at me to the email chain: madelyn.atkins.debate@gmail.com
pronouns: she/her
expericence:
Debated at Lansing High School for 4 years
Coaching:
Lansing (2021-2022)
Shawnee Mission South (2023-current)
top level:
- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted
- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased
- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized
topicality:
- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for
- I default to competing interpretations
- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this
k affs:
- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary
disads:
- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful
counterplans:
- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory
- delay counterplans are cheating
- textual and functional is always good
- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise
- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team
- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar
kritiks:
- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview
- specific links are better than generic ones
- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt
case:
- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption
email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com
Assistant for Washburn Rural
Competed @ Washburn Rural - '19-'23
I'm fine with speed though in my experience debaters often benefit from slowing down and speaking more efficiently. Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.
Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.
I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the exception).
Case
Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.
Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.
DAs
DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.
CPs
Condo is good. I will vote on condo bad, but find myself voting neg very frequently unless they chronically under covered the arg.
I think judge kick is pretty lazy and will not default to it. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.
T
T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.
Ks
I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.
Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.
You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.
If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm happy to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading pure reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.
K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.
CX
Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.
Other
Things that are good:
Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.
Things that are bad:
Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.
I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.
Hannah Erdman, Wichita East High School Head Speech and Debate Coach
Previous Experience: Assistant Coach for Eisenhower High School, HS Policy Debate, HS Forensics Kid, Kansas State University Policy Debate
- Include me on email chains: herdman@usd259.net
- Spread is fine. Just slow down on taglines and make sure you signpost. Ask your opponent's preference for spread to keep the debate fair and equitable.
- Tech > Truth, but don't be surprised if I leave some feedback that you have some very obviously glaring falsities in your argument, but overall, I value the structure of the round and will honor the arguments actually made.
- If you don't flow, I'm not flowing. I tend to vote on the flow in a policy maker style.
- Don't pull new in the 2-- I find it cheating.
Novices: Honestly, I really just value that you are in a round and getting it done. Make what arguments you feel comfortable making and do what makes you feel most comfortable. I will help where I can, and I will have patience and grace as long as it does not interfere with fairness and the structure of the tournament. Please know that I give a lot of feedback, so even if I am not looking at you and I am typing, it is because I am writing with the intent that you get better based off of my notes. In addition to that, a lot of novices and competitors have commented that I look like an intimidating, angry judge. I promise I am incredibly kind and personable-- my face is just like that. :) Practice professionalism and kindness as a novice, and you will go far in my book. However, debate is still argumentation, so make sure you give me that clash! Spice it up with some good analytics-- don't just read cards. I really don't like to see framework, theory, and K run in novice, but if you do it, know it through and through. Have fun!
-JV/Open:You are on your way to Varsity! Keep up the good work, here's what I expect out of JV/Open: Trust in your arguments and follow through with them. I am not a huge fan of seeing K, Framework, and High Theory in JV. More K can come through in Open.
Disadvantages: Always a great strat, but I'm not a huge fan of generic disadvantages. You should have a really strong internal link and cards that aren't contradictory, easily turned, or land in a thumper argument. You're here to have fun, and I love to see that, so go for the existential impacts and make it good. I will also deeply appreciate some solid philosophical debate on ethical impacts and the subsequent Impact Calculus.
Topicality: Lowkey, I kind of hate topicality arguments, but I'll listen to them. Just make sure it's not a throwaway argument for you. Many times when I see T run in JV and Open, it's dropped or conceded by the end of the constructives. If you also try to argue fariness and vagueness, then you pull out 3 specific DA's? I really hope the Affirmative catches you on that. Really believe in T and don't use it as a filler argument ("10 off, starting with 5 T" is really a pet peeve of mine.)
Counterplans: Unironically, I do kind of love counterplans, especially ones that challenge the structure of the round and of the affirmative plan. On the flipside, make sure the perm isn't lazy-- really give it some work and push back on it. The only thing I ask for counterplans is that you make it pretty obvious that it's a counterplan and not just some randomly mis-labeled argument that looks like you pulled it from a random file. You're open and JV, you should know what you've got going.
- Varsity: Go crazy in varsity-- you got here, let it all out and have the fun you deserve. The only thing I ask is that you don't get too aggressive in the round. I'm fine with about every argument in varsity: DA, Topicality, CP, K, High Theory, Framework, etc. I am also fine with spread, but please check in with your partner and slow on taglines so I know where you are at in the document. See my comments in JV/Open about DA, T, and CP.
Kritik: I generally love K because I think it adds a certain angle to the debate that you do not see in other rounds. Varsity is a place to experiment and have fun, but even in performatives, K Affs, and other strats, make sure there's at least a thread that links back to the topic. It's hard to prep for otherwise, especially if you're not disclosing earlier than 30 minutes before the round (Debate Wiki).
High Theory: I was in college around the time that high theory became pretty prevalent in debate. As someone that likes to challenge norms and values in a round, I want to see some high theory and rules arguments including some potential negotiation and debate over the definitions/limitations of current rules. I also kind of love some meme debate in varsity, because it keeps it fresh and fun without becoming a verbally violent policy fight.
Framework: Listen, I'm generally acting as a policy maker, but if you want to try to run some paradigm shift and re-define how I vote for the round, that's cool. I like seeing the creative ways in which debaters want to frame the round. It allows for some mental gymnastics that are ultimately good for the soul.
- Any other questions, comments, or argument clarifications can be emailed to me at least 30 minutes before round begins or asked at the top of round.
Max McCarty
---updated before BVSW 2024---
Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com
Debate Experience
I debated at BVSW in high school, focusing on the TOC circuit during my senior year, where we consistently cleared. In college, I competed for a year at UTD, attending all major tournaments as well as some local D3 events. From 2018-2019, I worked at the SDI as a debate judge and speech reviewer. Over the past 6+ years, I’ve been actively coaching high school debate, first at LFS until the 2022-2023 season and now at BVN. Throughout my coaching journey, I’ve worked with students at all levels, from novices to some of the top competitors in the country.
--Top level things --
At the end of the day, this is a communication activity!
- Reading paragraphs of analytics at full speed will get you no where. I think that students find that if "they put them in the doc" all is forgiven. I could care less, I am flowing your speech, not the doc.
- Means that cards should be highlighted appropriately - I grow increasingly frustrated when reading cards that are incoherent because they consist of a bunch highlighted sentence fragments.
- Line by Line and direct clash has to happen! The more the better! Large overviews are often confusing and messy. As they are arguments that could be contextually explained far better doing line by line and comparative analysis than the same overview every speech.
- Specificity matters, I see this in both "ideological types" of debate. For policy teams an example is: reading 10 cards to prove a link to a bad PTX da in the block is fine, but at some point quality analytical spin that tells me why they matter or interact with specific portions, mechanisms, results, etc of the aff is equally as valuable. For K teams, an example is impact explanations, how they interact with the specifics of the aff, round, what it means for the specific debate are important as I often find these explanations to be vague.
- not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do
- I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
Tech > Truth
T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.
Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:
- I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
- I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.
FW:
I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.
- I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.
- I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
- round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.
DAS:
They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.
CP:
I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.
Ks:
I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. In general, I am probably not the best for these debates outside of more "basic" ones (Cap, Security, Set-Col). This is because I’m not well read in lit at all. Does not mean I have not judged many debates outside of that, but with me being so much less involved than I used to and never reading that type of literature I would rather be upfront. If your argument falls outside of the above, ways you can help me are context, specificity, and direct clash and line by line. First and foremost I have to have an understanding by the end of the round what the specific link to the aff is, and how the alternative resolves it. Second, direct clash and line by line works in your favor as it helps me more clearly see where you are winning offense and adds to your explanations.
More general comments here - I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. the My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.
Case debate:
This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.
Other things/pet peeves
-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.
-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.
- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.
-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.
Email Chain---Hjwalawender@gmail.com, smedocs@googlegroups.com
Current KU debater, previously debated at De Soto high school, Kansas.
Assistant debate coach, Shawnee Mission East.
General.
For students doing prefs: do you assignments before the tournament. It will save you endless amounts of stress.
Debater wins rounds not cards. I am not a fan of argument styles which endlessly spam cards and request I evaluate the argument rather than making evidence comparison. I make decisions off my flow and only in circumstances when absolutely necessary I will look at evidence. This means that if the argument you have made is different from your card I will only evaluate the argument you have made. Debates where I don't have to look at evidence will have high speaks.
Judge instruction is vital. I attempt to minimize intervention as much as possible. I will not cross apply arguments to different parts of the flow without explicit instruction even if you think it might be intuitive. Framing is very very very important to me and makes giving the decision you want wayyyyy easier to me.
Good for clash debates, better for policy throwdowns.
Don't be afraid to over explain the legal jargon on this topic. I have basically no topic knowledge.
I flow CX to understand positions more clearly and occasionally as a took to check for lying.
Tech >>> Truth.
Any speed is fine. That saying a few exceptions:
1. In varsity tournaments spreading is a norm but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask. If a team says they don't want to spread, don't. I'm very comfortable voting down teams that don't respect this.
2. Pen time. PLEASEEEEEEE. I cannot type/write the 6 perms that you said in 3 seconds. Trust me it takes way longer than you would think.
I am very comfortable clearing you. If I have to clear you multiple times I will stop flowing. Clarity also involves volume btw.
I won't judge kick unless told to. Prefer this starts in the block not the 2nr.
Non highlighted warrants aren’t warrants.
Disclosure is good and I will vote for arguments that argue such. If you believe your opponent losing 30 min of preround prep will determine the direction of the debate for you that feels like a you problem. These arguments are best when their is proof of non or mis disclosure ie put me on the disclosure email or put a screenshot of it in the doc.
Clash Debates.
Is it un or non topical? Who knows.
I enjoy thinking about these debates and I think they are great thought experiments. Despite my voting record, I am generally neg leaning.
I vote negative when the negative has disproven the viability of the affs model for a sustainable, season long stasis of debate-ability AND justified, at least at some level, their interpretation of what debate should look like.
I vote affirmative when they have justified their model of debate. To me, this is best done when there is an impact turn to a neg standard/a DA to their model, AND a counter interp that resolves, or at least attempts to resolve both teams offense. It is not impossible to win without a counter interp, frankly it might even be more easy given how limits and ground are often uncontextualized to the counter interp, but I think I proving that your offense can be accessed at the same time as fostering quality debates is what convinces me the most.
It is important to note that these are different. Neg teams which narrowly focus on the fact that the aff is un-topical and thus over invest in the impact level of the debate will lose these debates in front of me. I am generally of the opinion that clash, fairness, limits, and ground are all good, but how we get access to these arguments are where these debates often fall apart. Because of such, I believe that most of this debate should take place on the counter interp level.
Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.
I believe debate is a game with pedagogical benefits, obviously this is not set in stone, but framing around this issue of what debate actual is and what benefits it can provide will help me judge these rounds. For instance, arguments that clearly identify debate is an innately competitive activity with benefits that can only be actualize in an environment which enables fair debates with in-depth clash help me realize that I should prioritize models which facilitate such should win the round.
I am also open to different interpretations of what debate should look like and what content it should facilitate. However, if that is your strategy, you should have a robust defense of what your interp is.
One of the most important things in these debates is clear identification of how internal links interact. Do structural factors like exhaustion of a certain group outweigh exhaustion caused by the limits DA? Questions like these are often what I ask myself when writing my decision and often they are unresolved by debaters which, to me, leaves too much in my hands when making the decision. The statement "X outweighs Y because Z," is my favorite thing to here in these debates.
TVAs are good and by the 2NR need to have explicit explanation of why they solve aff DAs. Otherwise, they are often not important in my decision because of a lack of application to the flow.
Kritical Affs.
I’ve only read a policy aff so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Presumption. I don’t think the aff needs to win spill out but they should have justifications for why reading the aff in the round is good or negation of the aff is good.
Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.
I think Affs should have a proto-plan text or just some line in the 1AC that says what you advocate.
I dislike 3 min overviews of the aff.
Disproving the affs theory of power is presumption level offense for me. If they are wrong about why X happens then their advocacy that subscribes to X is likely not solvent.
K v Policy.
When going for framework, the 2NR needs to clearly extend their interp, a net benefit to it, and how it applies to the aff interp. I have no idea what the argument "the 1AC is an object of research" actually means. Do I weigh the aff? Do you only get links off of the 1AC? Do links have to be to the plan mechanism or plan text? If not then to what do you and don't get links to? Do you need an alt? If so why not? All of these are often questions that are vitally important to my decision that are never answered.
It is also in the interest of the aff to resolve these questions. If they get links to word 1639 in card 4, in adv 3, that makes your predictability internal link way more believable then just blanket statements about Ks being unpredictable.
Send your interps in the doc. I will juice speaks for this because it is something I believe should be a norm since the wording of these is incredibly important for these debates.
Spamming perms with no explanation is bad. Perm do both with a clear net benefit >>> 7 perms that are all functionally the same.
Fairness, education, and clash are impacts and need to be treated like a war impact when you answer case. Dropping one will probably mean game over.
Arguments that my ballot only solves fairness are persuasive. “Just join an online discussion group,” or “just research without debating,” are not.
I’m a big fan of over explaining the alt especially if it is epistemology based.
Private Actor fiat bad is persuasive. Negs don’t always need to fiat the alternative.
CPs.
You need to slow down on competition. I cannot flow 7 standards for functional competition good that are all half a sentence long when the 2NR will be neg flex and the topic is bad.
Process CPs are illegitimate to me. I think they are artificially contrived to create net benefits non germane to the case and reduce aff offense as much as possible. The worst of such are those which compete off of immediacy and certainty. Because of such I think limited functional intrinsic perms are not the abhorred argument that most believe. This does not mean I won't vote for them, and unfortunately, I vote for them often because of technical errors made by aff teams.
When going for functional competition besides justifying your theory of competition, I need a reason to prefer your interpretations of the words your counterplan competes off of. For instance, the 2NC must justify why competition off of immediacy is good and the 1AR should demonstrate it is bad. Otherwise I have no idea how to chose the more preferable definition.
Basically every judge ever would rather vote on a solvency deficit than competition. I am one of those judges. This doesn't mean I would never go for competition in front of me but If you are confident in a deficit that has an quantifiable/qualifiable impact go for it.
CPs should be legitimate and compete.
Counterplans should have a solvency advocate. Artificial competition is bad.
Competition tricks are often not persuasive.
T.
Competing interps > reasonability. Reasonability is underrated.
I will absolutely vote for "bad," horribly over limiting, or groundless interps as long as they are winning on tech. This is mostly due to a lack of offense extended by the aff in these debates.
Plan text in a vacuum is a mixed bag for me - I generally default to its bad but neg teams that have solid explanations of it versus other theories of competition can change my preference.
Buzz words are bad especially on these debates.
2ACs need to be responsive, do not drop 1NC impacts or internal links.
Best T debates give case lists for their interps AND their opponents interps (this will also give you super high speaks if done correctly).
Theory.
Besides condo and disclosure I find theory as a reason to reject the team not persuasive.