He/Him

Assistant debate coach for Lawrence Free State (LFS), current KU student. Graduated from LFS in '22, debated all four years (fast debate sophomore year, KDC junior/senior). I don't debate in college.

Put me on the email chain: theezrajoseph@gmail.com

For debaters primarily competing in DCI/faster styles: your best bet is treating me as a flay judge. You can try spreading if you want to, but there is no guarantee that I will keep up/catch everything, especially if I'm flowing on paper. Obviously, that's on a spectrum, and you can be quicker than conversational if you want to be, but I almost certainly will not pick up analytics you're speeding through at 100%. I would love to say, "Go for whatever you're comfortable going for," but unfortunately for both of us, I went for disads/counterplans, so that's what I'm the most comfortable listening to. Again, you can try your critical affirmative/kritik in front of me, and I will do my best to adjudicate, but you're just increasing your likelihood of getting an RFD that you're unhappy with/doesn't make sense to you.

For debaters primarily competing in KDC/JV/novice: this is the style of debate I spent more time with, both competitively and from a judging standpoint. So, do whatever you're used to/comfortable with and I'll be fine. Things that will make me happy include using your flow, line-by-line debate, and impact calc + judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR.

General miscellaneous: full claims require a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped arguments are true arguments. I will be flowing, and if I'm really on top of it and not running on fumes, timing prep as well.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Overview: This is my first year as an Assistant Debate Coach for Garden City High School. During the school day I teach US government, and I have a degree in Broadcast journalism so I have a significant background with this year’s topic. I took several law and debate classes in college but my schedule never allowed me to compete. I will be flowing the round, I wont tolerate bullying or bigotry.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are allowed to express their arguments,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.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate, 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.

Judge’s Favor:

Something I really like to see is sportsmanship. Introducing yourself to your opponents, Asking them questions at the beginning of the round to make sure that you are sharing information in a way that works for everyone, anything that shows me you are not trying to squeeze out every advantage you can get is a bonus in my book.

DO NOT’s:

Spreading-If I have to focus on listening so I can understand the words that are coming out of your mouth it It is hard for me to look at your side favorably.

Talking over Cross Examination: I have seen too many debaters talk over their opponent during cross examination and not letting the other ask questions or respond to the questions being asked.

Warnings:

These are things that you can do but if you get me off the topic you cannot guarantee I will reach the same conclusion you do based off of your evidence:

K arguments are dangerous.- I love a good K argument but i have seen a lot of them go off the rails and backfire.

Topicality: If you do attack topicality do it well.

*** 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. :)

johnny perkins

harvard '28

bvhs '24

four-year debater and forensicator

make arguments that make sense please

use jhperkins8@gmail.com for email chains

I took High School Debate for 2 years in the 1990s. I judged a couple tournaments back then as well. More recently, I have judged some novice/JV tournaments.

I like a good roadmap and I like to keep a good flow. I don't mind fast delivery especially for evidence, but prefer arguments to be slower or at least well delineated.

Let's keep things cordial and professional.

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.