Tabroom.com

Kansas Championship Series

2025 — Topeka, KS/US

Kansas Debate Classic Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nora Akers Lansing HS None

Mattie Blackburn Clay Center Community High School None

Tyler Boutte Olathe South High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:49 AM CST

Updated: November 2023

Former 4 year debater at Olathe South High School (Graduated 2020; US-Sino Relations, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)'

Current Asst. Coach @ Olathe South

4 years of policy and 3 years of LD

tylerboutte4@gmail.com

TLDR: You do you, I'm just here to evaluate your perspective of the topic. I have my own preferences but ultimately if you provide a warranted model of debate I'll vote for you. Feel free to add me to the email chain and ask any questions for clarification.

Judge Philosophy: Policymaker. Debate rounds are won with offense vs. defense. Do with that what you will.

*Online Debate*: I participated in the online format at Nationals and didnt have any issues other than the other team having bad internet. If you're gonna go fast make sure, your doc says everything you say just in case someone's internet decides to cut out.

Tech>Truth

Speed: Go as fast as you want just slow down for tags, authors, and theory. Speed rounds are fun. If you can do it well, please do.

Topicality: Over time I've come to care about this type of debate less and less. I find the threshold for me to vote neg on T to be pretty high, but if that's what you're gonna go for do it. Please do not just read a T block and precede to reread that block throughtout every speech for the entire round. Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. Aff arguments about reasonabililty are pretty persuasive for me especially when the rebutalls come down to what is "fair." Recently teams have been opting to debate t on the surface level. That's 1) really boring and painful for everyone involved and 2) not helping win rounds. Good work on the standards and voters level of this flow looks like debating about the impacts of the aff's relationship to the resolution.

DA: Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense.

(2023: I'm not a huge fan of most DA's on this topic. Generic links and impact scenarios are not very persuasive unless you do the work to make it make sense. The more specific/realistic the better.)

FW/K: I have the most experience with critiques of security, set-col, militarism, and afropess but I'm willing to listen to anything and have probably read/looked into other popular critiques. These debates I find to be the most fun as a debater/judge but that also means they're the most frustrating. To me it seems that too many debaters are scared of actually debating the critiques they're running and instead default to framework debates. While I have no problem with these debates either, they tend to get incredibly sloppy and thus difficult to evaluate. In terms of how I evaluate the K itself, in levels of importance I think Link>impact>alt. Quite honestly, I dont care about the alt as much as I do how the critique itself impacts the aff. If you want to go for the alt, GREAT, but I'd prefer if you spend most if not all of the 2NR/2AR on powerful rhetoric about how me voting for you is going to reshape the world. Good k teams are giving great analytical arguments about the k's relationship to the aff instead of reading tons of cards of obscure theory.

Counterplans/Case: This may be the most underutilized aspect of debate now. Cases should be built with offense and defense embedded as part of the aff strategy. The neg should actually interact with the aff case and produce turns or deficits to the aff impacts. All CPs are fine, Ill let the debaters sort out what is and isnt fair. I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

Aimee Brandt Garden City High School

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 8:54 AM CST

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 3rd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

Bailey Brewer Nickerson HS

Harrison Brown Olathe Northwest High School

Chloe Chaffin Olathe Northwest High School

Lillie Chatman Pittsburg High School

Hello! I'm an experienced debater who competed in policy debate for four years, placing at state once, along with public forum debate for three years, competing at nationals each year. I graduated in 2023 and I've judged a handful of tournaments since then, I tend to default to policy maker.

Neg - I love CPs and if you can convince me the Affs plan will not work for any reason you have my vote, however I'm very picky and won't vote for you if you poke lazy holes and try to ignore the rules of fiat. DAs are a must especially when running a CP otherwise why not do the plan? I'm no stranger to Ks - I understand how they work but it's a tired tactic and I don't want to see them in round. You may still win while running a K but it definitely won't do anything to help you. New in the 2 is fine but it shouldn't have any new off-case. I like theory and T but only when they fit - don't throw them out just to see if they stick.

Aff - You have the harder job of convincing me your plan is bulletproof. I like affs that are easy to understand and make sense; I'm okay with weird niche ones but make sure they're not too convoluted. Don't bring up completely new advantages in the 2AC it's weird. If the Negs arguments are a reach explain why I should ignore them. If your plan isn't "bulletproof" at least convince me that the alternative is worse.

I don't usually like spreading but if I can at least make out you taglines it's okay - but if I can't you'll be voted down. Please don't talk during your partners speech.Cross-x is a time for quick clarification don't use your questioning time to try to embarrass the other person, and don't use your answering time to give breathy answers to run the clock. Tell me how to vote and try to seem like you believe what you're saying. I like more casual and friendly debates, I'll vote you down for being rude to your opposition. Feel free to crack (appropriate) jokes!

For questions about your ballot my email is:lilliechatman133@gmail.com

Jessica Childress Independence High School

David Freeland Wichita East

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:00 AM CST

David Freeland

No personal debate experience however, you will find qualifications and paradigm below:

Years of Judging Experience: 5 years, currently living with an Assistant Debate Coach who has years of HS and college debate experience.
Educational Background: Wichita Collegiate grad, Bachelors Degree in Anthropology, Masters' Degrees in Psychology and Sociology. Ph.D.C in Psychology with a focus on diagnostics and statistical analysis.
Hobby-level interests in politics, scientific research studies, history, and policy structure.

Debate-specific paradigm:

Overall, I most identify with policy maker style judging with some tabula rasa.

-I do not mind speed, but please keep it below college-style debate speed. I want you to be able to annunciate and talk fast. Please refrain from screaming, pointing at judges, or singling out judges in a panel. It is unprofessional.

-I do tend to flow, although am not professionally trained to do so. It will look different than you typically expect of a more experienced judge.

-On all arguments, I want you to stick to them and believe in them. If the negative team drops an argument due to being refuted effectively, I will not vote against them. Affirmative, please make sure you address all arguments.

-On disadvantages, I prefer very specific DA's that have a strong link to the affirmative plan. Generic DA's are ok, but add more or find a specific link.

-On counterplans, make sure they are formatted correctly and it is clearly stated they are a counterplan. I have seen too many rounds where the counterplan is not explicitly stated. Stick to the counterplan as it is initially created. Do not use this opportunity to be vague and a moving target, changing your CP.

-I tend to dislike K and T arguments. I believe T is vague and allows too much flexibility for the negative team to change their definitions at will. K is a frustrating topic, as it does not tend to be specific and usually just aims at semantics.

-Please include me on speechdrop, email chains, and other evidence exchanges. This makes it fair to you that I am seeing the evidence and can refer to it as needed.

-I do not like vague plans that are unable to explicitly state what they are doing. If the affirmative can change it between rounds or tweak it to say something slightly different, it is not a solid plan. It has holes and would make an ill policy.

-Framework is a valid argument as debate is a structured event with rules. Do not allow your argument to fully rely on framework and rules. I am much more apt to vote on policy than I am rules.

-Things teams tend to overlook: introduce yourself with your speaker position, no new arguments in rebuttals (evidence is fine), new arguments in the 2NC are not against policy but are definitely frowned upon for me.

Jenna Gorton Seaman High School

Last changed on Thu October 3, 2024 at 5:55 PM EST

Email: Jenna.gorton@washburn.edu

I prefer speech drop

NFALD-

I did NFA LD for 4 years for Washburn University. I currently am a grad assistant for Washburn's debate team. My favorite type of argument is T/theory/rules. As long as you're impacting out why fairness and education matter and are reading 4 parts on the sheet I'm willing to listen to basically any theory position. That being said, I also like aff outweighs T arguments or other offense generated against theory sheets. I don't come into the round assuming debate is good or bad so it's the debaters job to persuade me. I consider myself tech>truth on theory sheets as long as you are making actual warranted arguments and aren't just saying claims.

If I have to intervene because of a messy flow or because nobody extended an impact I become a stock issues judge. As such, I tend to have a much higher threshold for whichever team doesn't have presumption.

Speed is fine. I don't have a preference. If I miss something because you weren't clear that is on you. I probably won't clear you so use reasonable discretion.

Please run your weird cheater affs/strats in front of me. Of course you have to theoretically justify them on the back end, but this activity can be so boring and I want to see your creativity.

I'm very sympathetic to arguments focused on pointing out deployment errors in general (no uniqueness on a disad, only claims with no warrants on standards debates, dropped args are true args, vague interps bad, etc. etc.).

On Ks I'm not a huge fan of links of omission. I also am VERY sympathetic to criticisms of non-indigenous debaters reading set col or other such arguments. If the link isn't a link of omission there are exceptions.

If you're going for presumption and have a counteradvocacy please don't also extend the alt/CP. Just go for presumption.

I think it's the judge's responsibility to intervene if anything problematic was said to another debater and I will even if the other team doesn't call it out. I am also likely to intervene if you're excluding someone using speed or by not sending analytics if you have been communicated with about this before the round. It's cool to do mid-round off time clarification questions or to type up analytics to send if asked by your opponent to resolve these issues.

Overall, I tend to want to vote without thinking very much if possible. This means a good collapse can easily win my ballot even if the rest of the debate was not going in your favor. If you're winning everywhere but don't collapse to anything and the other team does collapse to something I'm going to lean towards the team that collapses to something unless it's just completely unwinnable.

I'll probably learn more about myself as I judge more NFALD and I'll try to update the paradigm if I figure out more of my biases. If I judge you and you think some way I've evaluated something is strange let me know because I'll throw that up in my paradigm. My goal is never to surprise anyone with a decision so if I am pretty consistently biased toward certain args then I'd like to know so y'all can have a heads up.

High school debate- I will be voting neg unless the aff convinces me that the plan CAN and should change the status quo. If solvency and an advantage is not extended into the last speech I will probably vote neg (see exceptions below). If the aff is going for an impact or perception based link turn you don't need to extend aff solvency. If you collapse to most link/internal-link turns/aff turns off-case arguments you MUST also extend aff solvency.

If the negative reads a counter advocacy or theory sheet and collapses to it then the aff only has to prove that it's preferable to the counter advocacy, that the counter advocacy doesn't solve, or that the theory sheet is not offensive against the aff.

I enjoy good clean theory debates with clash and warrants. If a theory sheet does not include all 4 parts and warranted arguments about how the theory sheet impacts the debate space I will be tempted to intervene. If you are planning to go for theory, theory sheets should be warranted in the first speech where they appear instead of being a list of buzzwords that get re-contextualized into arguments in later speeches.

I am almost always going to vote for the team who collapses to one or two synergistic arguments with impact framing over a team who points out every dropped argument on the flow without context for why it matters.

If I have to intervene because of a messy flow from both teams/little to no collapse done from either side I tend to vote negative on presumption UNLESS the negative has extended a counterproposal into their final speech in which case presumption flips aff.

Speaker points/rank are assigned based mostly on who wins and then who made the debate the most clear and accessible (including to your partner). Condescending behavior towards partners who might not be as experienced is the fastest way to lose speaker points/rank.

Averi Harker Olathe Northwest High School

Logan Hartwell Olathe South High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:39 AM CST

Former debater at Olathe South High School and current assistant coach there as well.

I've debated/judged/coached in both KDC and DCI divisions so I'm down for any style of debate.

Big Picture:

Tech>Truth

Judge instruction is very important to me. I want to flow the round with minimal judge intervention, this means that I want you to explain to me why I should prefer your arguments, what I should vote for in the round, etc.

This means that you should run with what you feel the most confident and comfortable with. However, if you don't provide me with a way to vote in the round I will just default policy maker.

Personally, I believe that debate is a game of offense and defense. Offense for both teams is very important to win the round for me.

Impact Calc is a must.

A team is much more likely to win my ballot if they have a clean flow. This means having great signposting, line by line, and clash.

Extending and explaining warrants would be nice.

I understand that this is a competitive activity and for me it's cool to be laid back but I request that the debaters are still respectful to each other inside or outside the round.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or my decision, please feel free to ask me anything.

Disadvantages: While it is true that the more recent your uniqueness is, the more likely I am to weigh your argument and the DA but old-ish ones work fine too. That being said, I hate when a team just says that I should prefer their evidence because the opponent's card is "outdated". The team must explain to me in context as to why it matters that one card is newer then the other (what about the more recent world has changed?). Obviously the more specific your link, the more likely I am to weigh the DA but generic links work too if you make them. I feel that lately debaters have been treating these types of debates as separate piece from the case flow. Both teams should articulate how/why the DA interacts with the case. This includes impact calc which is severely under utilized. I'm most likely to vote on this flow if its connected to the aff case instead of being a floating argument for me to evaluate. Aff teams should also be looking to turn disads into advantages for the case instead of only playing defense. I am also a huge fans of both link and impact turns on disads and take them very seriously if the aff plans on running them in the round. If the aff does end up going for or winning on a link or impact turn, just make sure to fully explain to me what means for the debate round as a whole. I want you to treat it as if you have just won a new free advantage for your case.

Topicality: Keys to this debate are explaining to me why the aff's model of debate as a whole is bad, not just this round specifically. I believe that the best style of T debate is one where the main focus of the debate is around the standards and voters of T. In order for me to vote on T, I would need a team to put a heavy amount of the debate on the standards or voters. For me, T is not an automatic voting issue, if a team does a well enough job on the voters flow, I can be convinced that it doesn't matter if the aff isn't topical since there is no reason to vote for T. Also, I fully believe that T is not a reverse voting issue. If nothing else is specified, I default competing interps over reasonability.

Counterplans: I think the best way to convince me whether to or not to vote on a counterplan is do compare the solvency of the aff to the solvency of the counterplan in order to prove which one solves the impacts better. I'm cool with all types of counterplans such as PICs, delay, consult, etc. I find myself leaning towards the negative's side on the argument of whether or not some counterplans are abusive or not. That being said, I'm willing to vote on any type of counterplan theory if done right. Perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

Kritiks: The Kritiks that I have a decent amount of knowledge or experience with are security, militarism, capitalism, set col, and anthro. Don't just expect me to know everything about the K and make sure to really go in depth in explaining how it works. On the link level, I think that this is probably the most important part of the K for me and would like a clear explanation or evidence of the Aff linking/triggering the K. For impact, I would want you to do lots of work on how that impact affects the case by doing case turns or impact calculus. Even though it is important to include some work on the alt by including some good comparative solvency in it, it is not the most important thing for me. While having a good alt would obviously make the K a lot stronger, I would be fine for voting for a K with a weak alt if the impact is fleshed out enough to completely outweigh or turn the aff case. If your impact is just destroying the other team, then I don't really think you need that good of an alt but just make sure you give me some kind of an alt such as reject the aff so I have some kind of alt to even vote on. Even though I am not that big on the alt, I do need some kind of an alt in order for me to vote for the K.

Kritikal Affirmatives: A lot of my thoughts here are similar to my thoughts on Kritiks as well. This does not mean that I won't vote on K-Affs as I have before and have coached some teams running them. Overall, I think the most important thing to K-Affs to me is judge instruction. Specifically, the aff team needs to tell me what I am voting for and what my ballot does for the debate round and how that ballot or the 1AC solves. This means that role of the ballot is very important to my vote and should be clear what it is in the 1AC. I prefer that your K-Aff is related to the resolution somewhat instead of just debate as a whole and for the aff team to be fully explain what they are exactly rejecting or critiquing.

Framework: When I debated, this was my favorite part of the K debate so I do enjoy seeing a good FW round. How I feel about FW debates is pretty much the same way as I feel about T debates. The debates of FW should be impacted out to not only this debate round, but also debate as a whole. I think the best way for teams to argue FW is for them to use their impacts on the flow as offense. Unless the neg can make a really compelling we meet argument, I find it extremely hard to see myself voting for the neg on K if they lose FW.

Theory: Unless the other team is obviously extremely abusive in the round for whatever the reason, for me theory is a hail mary. That means that if you go for it, you better go all the way in the round/2NR and make it the voting issue in the round. For less abusive theory arguments, I generally default reject the argument over reject the team but I am willing to reject the team if I am convinced so. Specifically on condo, I do find that my threshold for condo is extremely high, I believe that debate is ultimately a game and the neg has every right to take advantage in this game and run as many off-case positions as they want. That doesn't mean I won't vote on condo though, the aff just needs to have an argument explaining why this model of the game is bad for debate as a whole.

On Case:Lately, I have been finding it very hard for me to vote for a negative team with no offense/just defense and their sole argument being that the case doesn't solve. If worst case scenario for passing the aff is simply that it doesn't solve while best case scenario is gaining X and Y impacts, then I'm gonna feel pretty comfortable voting aff. For me, defensive on case arguments such as solvency deficits, impact defense, etc. mainly help you win your probability arguments on impact calc rather than me purely voting on it in round. However, I think that offensive on case arguments such as impact or case turns can be very useful as well. Overall, on case arguments can be effective, but offense is also needed as well in order to gain my ballot.

Speed: I'm cool with spreading or going as fast as you want as long as you're clear and slower on tags, authors, analytical arguments, and theory. I expect for debaters to slow down a bit if they are reading from a pre made block on their computer. It is going to be really hard for me to keep up with you on the flow if you are just speeding through your premade block from your computer. That being said, I don't expect perfect clarity with spreading but I want at least to understand it somewhat so it's not just straight gibberish.

Henry Jantzen Washburn Rural High School

Ezra Joseph Lawrence Free State High School

Shawn Lawson Olathe West

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:27 PM CST

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 and you will lose.

- Additionally, I will under no circumstances vote for a team that uses AI to write their speeches - you will get the lowest speaks I can and I will report this to your coach. I didn't think this required saying but somebody has managed to prove me wrong. Write your own arguments, I'm not here to judge how good of a debater ChatGPT is.

- 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

Amber Malec Manhattan High School

Rob Owens Washburn Rural High School

Johnny Perkins Blue Valley

Aaron Schopper McPherson High School

Cody Spurlock Buhler High School

Hunter Squires Clay Center Community High School

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 12:44 PM CST

I have 8 years of debating experience and currently compete in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com

This activity should be centered around debaters, not judges, so it's the judge's responsibility to adapt to the debaters, BUT judges will always have preconceived notions of debate, so it is strategically beneficial for debaters to adapt to judges as well. By this I mean I will do my best to make a decision based on what the debaters make the round about, but knowing my opinions of debate could be the difference between a win and a loss in close rounds.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to.

I really like unique arguments, even if they are kind of silly.

On specific arguments

T/theory- I will pull the trigger on theory so fast. Just PLEASE make sure you have all four parts of the shell, including a CLEAR interpretation. Something like "Condo bad" is not an interp.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- Generic links are good. Specific links are better.

CPs- Love em. Presumption flips aff.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do). I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in cap and Baudrillard. I have yet to see a good psychoanalysis K.

K affs- You can read a K aff, but you need to have a really good reason for not being topical. In great rounds, I often find it hard to evaluate the K aff v Framework debate because I genuinely find both sides of this argument incredibly convincing.

Sliding scale to illustrate my views of some things:

*These are simply my prior held beliefs. If you make arguments one way or another I will evaluate them as I would evaluate anything else.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good---X-------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

Tech--X--------Truth

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has value. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you. If you have any questions feel free to ask before round!

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and your objective shouldn't be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

Joe Walberg St. James Academy

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 3:30 AM CST

Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.***

If you read nothing else in this paradigm statement, read this: I reserve the right to vote down rude debaters and performers, based on principle alone. The world has enough anger; I won't participate in meanness. Not everything has to be sunshine and butterflies (I can be prickly, myself), but unkindness is a deal-breaker.

ALL DEBATE EVENTS: I don't come down with a hard line on tech vs truth, but in general, I tend to value truth over tech. That's not a popular position, I know. But empty sophistry is a problem in our community, y'all. Still, each round kind of shapes itself differently, and sometimes technical play matters more. This is good analysis of why I'm not tech over truth (https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/tech-and-truth-how-judges-are-ruining-debate), while paying careful attention to separate my opinions from the actual debate. But if an argument is weak, I'm under no obligation to accept it. Is that judge intervention? Then it is judge intervention. I'm your audience. I'm going to vote for somebody. Come win me.

POLICY DEBATE: I'm a current head coach, but I'm behind on some technical play and I may get lost if you get into the weird stuff. Still, I’ll try!

Having learned the game of debate before the ubiquity of the internet, I’m a classic (vintage?) example of a stock issues judge who likes fundamentally strong debate and who tends to dislike Kritikal debate because of the way it pressures the judge into unfair positions between competing social ills. Run them if you want and I'll make my best judgment, but if you put me in an untenable position of destroying the earth or ruining the humanity that's left, I won't like it. But even though I can flow rounds, weigh impacts, and know the difference between my aff and a perm, I firmly believe that speech skills actually matter-- stand up straight and make eye contact. Speak to the judge in the back of the room, not the electrons zipping across your screen.

I pine for the halcyon days of outline-structured arguments, numbered responses, and roadmaps that sounded something like “Disad #1, Topicality, Disad #2, then Case-in-order”.

It is not abusive to run new arguments in either second constructive; constructives are for constructing arguments; that is why they are called "constructive" speeches. "No New in the Two" is for the weak.

Paperless debate should make debate rounds faster and more efficient, not slow them down because we forgot to do the upload or sprawl with "did you get it?" email chain lags. If you're going to drag this round out for electronic reasons, keep your prep time running. It's not a voting issue, of course. But we all have a duty to keep the tournament moving. Make policy ninety-minutes again!

I'm not convinced that "stealing prep" is actually a thing. Get up there and start speaking; they don't steal prep if you're talking.

Counterplans must be non-topical, otherwise both teams are affirming the resolution and both teams want me to vote Aff. "If the world is against non-topical-only Counterplans, then I am against the world!" --St. Athanasius of Alexandria (attributed)

I am impressed when people seem to actually know their pre-prepared blocks, and when it seems like they've thought about this argument at least once before they're standing up to read at me. It's great when people understand the links and how to tell its story. It's less impressive if you grab the Generic DA team block and read it without knowing what you're reading.

L-D: I'm not exactly a lay judge in LD, but I won't be insulted if you treat me that way. I definitely skew trad over prog LD. I'm very interested in how your Value will inform the rest of your case. Is it a recurring value that informs your position, or is it some noble idea that really doesn't translate into the rest of your argumentation? Debaters that claim a value/criterion and then ignore it for the rest of the debate don't tend to do well with me.

PFD: Most of the policy stuff applies here, but adapt for PF. That said, I quite dislike the Policy-ization of PF. This event was created to be different from Policy, not a lesser version of it. Discuss ideas and use evidence well, but please don't try to speed spread me and please don't try to strong arm your opponents. It's not that I don't believe in PF, but it's that I don't believe I want to work that hard as a PF judge.

Congress: Do people read Congress paradigms? Hi, Congressperson! Don't be afraid to break script to talk to your chamber rather than just reading at them; a Congress of competing oratories isn't really debate. Also, walk that fine line between being fun and being serious. Let's both enjoy our time in the Congress room! I promise that I'll take my job as a judge seriously if you take your role as a Congress debater seriously. But if you're not serious about doing a good job, I don't feel like I need to reciprocate with a seriously good score. I love this event. Let's be good for each other in it.

Other hills on which I will die: Jokes don't really work in debate rounds; signposting is the difference between an average debater and a good one; pizza isn't fun anymore. In Policy Debate, open Cross-Ex insults your partner. No one wants to shake your hand. Tabula Rasa is a unicorn. Medals should have ribbons. Hospitality rooms should have soda. Every debater should also do forensics.

Be nice to each other. Speak louder. And trust me on the sunscreen.

jwalberg@sjakeepingfaith.org

***This is the sunscreen joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI

Kate Ward Blue Valley

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 8:22 AM CST

speech drop is fine. please add me to the email chain:xkatewardx@gmail.com

Manhattan High School '24

KU '28 (not debating)

***i have difficulty with auditory processing, so while i can follow a fast pace, spreading will likely lose me and you the round. if you have any questions/concerns about this, feel free to ask me. i will clear you twice, but after that you're on your own ***

i debated all four years and competed in dci/varsity policy debate (kansas words for nationaly circut style debate). feel free to ask questions after round or email me.

novices/middle school—don't worry about a lot of what's in this paradigm, most of it isn't relevant to novice debate. regardless of what you run, you do your best and i'll do my best to give you helpful feedback. if you're confused about something or get overwhelmed, please talk to me and we'll figure it out. your learning and well-being will always override competition. also please ask me questions after round! i'm always down to answer debate questions.

top level:

i am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. my view of "policymaker" does leave room for in-round impacts. i have dabbled in kritical debate before, so feel free to run whatever so long as you explain it well. impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. an overview is always appreciated. tech over truth—BUT i have two sorta-exceptions: 1) the round requires an evaluation on truth and 2) the more absurd/abusive/unrealistic arguments get, the lower my bar gets for your opponents to counter it (please call out nonsense *politely*). i love and greatly appreciate a quality, well-researched strat, and die a little every time i see otherwise (don't get hung up on this if you're just desperate/panicked, i've been there too). judge instruction! tell me why and how i should vote in the rebuttals!

hurtful language and/or bigoted behavior are an auto loss. all requested accommodations should be made without issue. rudeness will hurt your speaks and my willingness to vote for you. please just be nice and considerate.

topicality

i default to competing interpretations. T for the sake of timesuck or forcing a link is fine. if you're actually going in on T, there needs to be significant debate about harms/benefits of the two models of debate, and what i should ultimately prefer. why does it matter that they're not topical? what precedent does that set for future rounds?

counterplans

general—run them! i ran (and love) unique/custom counterplans that are both textually and functionally competitive (different actor, and at least meaningfully different action). that being said, i think a lot of counterplans can be really abusive, so i'm a little predisposed to theory on anything that fails to present a truly competitive alternative. i think future or conditional fiat is probably abusive. net benefits need to be well articulated (especially internal net benefits), and the negative needs to explain why a perm severs, not just say that it does. that being said, i'll vote on any counterplan based on how it goes on the flow. major props though to teams running genuinely good advocacies as counterplans, even more so if you kick it in the end.

counterplan theory—aff, please avoid intrinsic perms. neg, please call out intrinsic perms and explain why they should be rejected (voters). fyi, an intrinsic perm adds an element previously not present to the plantext; time (a delay), this-then-that, etc. "PDB shields the link" needs to be explained, and an explanation of what the PDB would look like is necessary if you want me to vote on it. neg, point out that no explanation has been given. a good answer to a perm is simply an explanation of the textual and functional competition of your counterplan, it should almost never require evidence. do not run 7 unexplained perms and then expect me to vote on them if they neg doesn't respond to all 7 of them individually---especially if you just shadow extend and never articulate them. condo is probably good, but i can be convinced otherwise.

disads

i really respect a well run disad. uniqueness should be up to date or at least you need to be able to analytically convince me everything is still practically unique. specific links can go a long way, but again, a good contextualization of a generic link through analytics can also work. impact calc shouldn't just be buzz words, but explained in the specific context of the impact scenarios at play. turns case/impact turns need to be well explained and preferably carded—well-articulated turns will really help you out on the rest of the flow. don't forget the time frame when analyzing impacts!

kritiks

general—i have experience with these lit bases: security, orientalism/techno-orientalism (i love poststructuralist kritiks), abolition, cap, and racial cap, but i can probably judge most things as long as it's explained well. links should ideally be more than just omission (the aff failing to do x) and more than just the topic broadly (or at least contextualized more specifically). if it's not your story don't tell it, but also please don't use your experiences as leverage over other teams. you have a right to share, but not a right to shut others down. we're here to learn, and shutting people out ruins that.

specifics—i think that link work is just as important as explaining/defending the alt, but a lot of teams focus so heavily on proving their links that they forget to develop their alt—the alt is your advocacy, so it needs to be fleshed out, even if unopposed in round. i will be extremely hesitant to vote on something i do not understand, because if i can't understand it, how am i supposed to know it solves? if the aff points that out in round, and the neg doesn't clarify, that's enough for me to prefer the aff. K's without alt's are just case turns, and if the link isn't specific, they're really not persuasive—please point this out aff teams. i think aff teams should probably be able to weigh the plan, unless you can convince me something outweighs that in terms of education and fairness (harmful rhetoric, etc).

identity-centric kritiks--don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. using these narratives just because you know you can beat a policy team with them causes real-world harm. seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out all your rounds matters to me.

kritik theory--condo in K rounds is the one of the only times i find it even remotely persuasive and that's for the simple fact that answering Ks (well) takes time. there's a lot more perms available on K's, but please don't run +3 unexplained perms and expect them to win the round. neg teams, i think perm spec theory is a good reason for me to reject the argument. floating PIKs are usually pretty dirty (rarely actually solve for the plan), but if they're fairly obvious from the onset, i'll give you more leeway.

k-affs

i'll vote for a k-aff, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random judge matters to your aff. a strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. there are opportunities for a perf con debate that i haven't been seeing with enough teams--why is your k-aff focused on black identity asking for the validation/approval of me, a white judge? the ask alone feels contradictory. if it isn't, explain why.

theory

theory exists to stop toxic (in-round) behavior, reinforce a positive debate culture, and prioritize education in a debate. i do not think it exists to overwhelm the other team or secure an easy win. i think fairness and education are voting issues (if the situation truly violates those concepts), and i'm down for less common voters (inclusion, clash, real world, portable skills, iterative testing, etc)

y'all should be running more perf con.

Brian Welter Wichita Northwest High School

Jerrad Willis McPherson High School

Login to Tabroom

Kansas Championship Series

2025 — Topeka, KS/US

Kansas Debate Classic Paradigm List

Judges