Based on previous experiences, an opening note. If you are a white coach or student coming to this page to get my contact info to complain about one of my Black debaters doing some innocuous action in a round:

1. I did not ask
2. I do not care

This version of my paradigm is a total rewrite of my previous paradigm, an archived version can be found here. This rewrite does not represent a change in opinions but updating for clarity and structure.

i. Affiliations

Iowa City West High School,Head Coach(2011-2017, 2023-present): Assistant Coach/Judge 2014 until 2024, Head Coach since. I also debated for 3 years for ICW in high school starting in 2011.

Hawken School, OH (2021-2022): Judge

ii. About

I have been doing policy debate since 2011 and that is the format I am most familiar with and actually coach. However, I also have judged just about every other debate/speech format*. I would like to be added to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com and iowacitywestdebatedocs@gmail.com. I have both a BA in political science and a J.D. as well as a license to practice law in 2 states (Iowa and Ohio [Inactive]).** I am fairly tabula rasa and have voted in the past on the entire range of arguments. I have hopefully organized this in a readable manner. Let me know if you have any questions.

I. OVERVIEW

Do what you want to do. Do it well and I will probably vote for you. Esoteric Ks will require a bit more explanation but I will do my best to meet you in the middle. Tech over Truth but the truth is pretty persuasive. Generally, unless instructed otherwise, I will vote on based on the path of least resistance. This means the less I have to resolve in your favor, the more likely I am to vote for you. I will judge the debate you had in front of me. I will not intervene/insert my own opinions/knowledge unless absolutely necessary as tab will get mad at me if I take an hour to make a decision. I may make comments using my background knowledge in the RFD/oral critique after the round but generally unless noted, it didn't affect the outcome.

This is technically a nitpick but I'm going to put it here anyway. Citations to legal texts/court opinions have a very specific format. It's not hard to learn. Please use it in your cites when relevant, especially this year as the topic is incredibly legal-technicalities oriented. I will give you bonus points if I notice that your cites are in the correct format.

II. Line by Line(Please don't think of these as hard and fast rules. Do not feel like you have to overadapt.)

a. Disadvantages- They exist. You should read them if you want. Subject to the caveat in supra note 2, I don't really have any ideological hang ups about disadvantages. I would like them to be specific but I recognize that that's not always possible. Try to have real links to an actual affirmative, not just the entire concept of the year's topic.

b. Counterplans- I will vote off the counterplan text said out loud during the debate. You should have an actual solvency advocate for your counterplan. Counterplans without a solvency advocate are just a sentence and I will judge them accordingly. If the aff doesn't point this out, I won't vote you down but that means this is something aff's should be on the lookout for.

c. Kritiks- I am familiar with core kritiks (e.g. Cap, Security, SetCol, etc. [Basically, if it's regularly being put out by camps year after year, I am down to clown]). I am also familiar with ableism kritiks and a lot of the literature in that area. You shouldn't run into any problems running those in front of me. Virilio notwithstanding, if your K is named after a specific person, I am more than likely unfamiliar with it. I will try to meet you where you are but there are definitely ways you can make that easier (i.e. slowing down, clarity, avoiding jargon). In those instances, err on the side of over-explanation.

d. T- I don't particularly love the tactical deployment of T arguments as pure timewasters. I'm not advocating RVIs or anything but keep that in mind while crafting your 1NC. I will evaluate the T debate on the basis you tell me to (i.e. Competing Interp vs. Reasonability). In my mind, resolving T debates is similar to statutory interpretation thus the interp and violation debates are just as important as the standards/impact debate on T***. Many a court fight is lost based on the definition section of a statute (i.e. Interp/violation) rather than the operative provisions of a law (i.e. the standards/impact debate).

e. FW- I separate FW from T only really because I learned them separately as a debater. While I generally think having a stable locus for the debate is good and that locus should be the resolution, I am sympathetic to many anti-FW arguments. If you are an anti-FW team, please try to have an interpretation of the debate round that is more than just "vote for us". I roll my eyes a bit when I see "The Role of the Ballot/Judge is to vote for the team that does [object of the k]" in a speech doc. At that point, just come out and say the ROB/J is to vote for you. That is at least a bit more honest.

f. Theory-

(1). 3+ is where condo probably gets bad.

(2). You have to explicitly ask for judge kick.

(3). Judge kick is also probably bad. I'm not interested in doing historical revisionism to your 2NR. If you go for a counterplan, I should be judging the counterplan.

(4). If debatevision had not met an untimely end (RIP), I would link a decade-old Georgetown Debate Institute(?) lecture here about why international fiat is bad. But you'll just have to take my word for it.

(5). I have a high-ish bar for reject the team theory. If you want me to do so, it better be like 2+ minutes of the 2xR even if it's conceded by the other team. I am much more lenient on RtA framing and if used tactically, could have the same effect as RtT (i.e. rejecting the counterplan the 2NR went for).

g. Cross-Ex- This gets its own section because it's a critical part of the debate. Avoid clarification questions about cards read. These should be eliminated by flowing the actual speech rather than just writing down everything in the speech doc. Cross-ex is about establishing links and forwarding your arguments. Do that instead of asking questions you should already know the answer to. Also, if you're not going maverick, CX time is time for questions. If you don't have questions, then either prep time or the next speech starts. (I don't even have a high bar for what counts as "a question". Just one person in the partnership has to be doing something resembling CX).

III. Debate Senior Citizen Yells at Clouds (you can largely skip this section if you have limited pre-round prep time)

(I've been in and out of the community over the past 13 years so these are my extraneous thoughts about norms that have developed in the past decade.)

a. Why are cards highlighted so badly now? If you're card consists of 5 sentences, composed a word at a time, across 25 paragraphs, not only is that bordering on academic dishonesty which your points will suffer from, it also makes for substantially worse cards. If you're doing it for time reasons, I would suggest either getting faster or reading less.

b. Speaking of reading less, I do not love neg strategies that involve 5+ off in the 1NC. If you stand up for the 1NC and a number greater than 10 is in your order, I will be annoyed. I will still vote for you regardless of my feelings on the strategy but I think these strategies place you well behind the starting line in a debate. These strats lead to 1 or more of the following situations: your cards are dangerously under-highlighted, your arguments are dangerously blippy, or you have to reach the upper thresholds of speed and human comprehension and, unfortunately, I don't type that fast. The first two create a scenario where the debate is incredibly anti-educational. The third creates a situation where you are incredibly unhappy with me at the end of the debate as I only caught, generously, 40% of your arguments. Policy debate should be education first, competition second. But neither of those goals are accomplished in 5+ off strats. Additionally, spending a minute kicking positions at the top of the 2NC is not compelling on a base ethos level.

c. I don't have many hangups on the presentation level of debating. Dress however you want, speak how you want, sit or stand. However one presentation thing I think is good is facing the judge during CX. Facing your opponent during CX is bad on an ethos level, especially if you end up facing entirely away from the judge. I will try to take a central spot in the room to facilitate this as easily as possible.

d. Impact/evidence comparison should happen early and often. Necessary judge intervention happens almost exclusively in scenarios where evidence and especially impact comparison starts in the 2xR. Late breaking debates result in neither you, your points, nor me being happy with the result of that round.

IV. LD Stuff

From my understanding of LD terms, I'm probably a LARP judge. I know kritiks and stuff but phil debates will probably go a bit over my head. I will judge a theory debate that is presented to me. My speed threshold is probably lower in LD because they way evidence and arguments are presented is fundamentally different from CX. You will probably want to go about 70% of what you consider "fast".

V. Endnotes

*Note 1: I also coached World Schools but WS apparently hates the concept of explaining how a judge thinks to debaters so this document wouldn't be super relevant to WS and thus WS isn't relevant to this document.

**Note 2: With this in mind, if you're going to go for a really technical argument in either of those areas be sure you really, really know what you're doing. If you don't, and it will be clear if you don't, I will likely be incredibly annoyed for the entirety of the debate. The place this will be the biggest issue is evidence. I read cards and I have noticed a significant uptick in egregious Tag/Card mismatch. This goes beyond powertagging and borders on straight up dishonesty. In these cases, I have no issue basing my decision on what the card actually says rather than a debater's misrepresentation. For the sake of your speaker points and an efficient RFD after the round, heed this warning. Also, with this in mind, if I start going on a tangent in my RFD about some legal concept and you have somewhere to be, feel free to tell me to wrap it up.

***Note 3: This year's topic is worded terribly and thus lot of the interp cards I've seen coming out of camp files this year (2024-2025) are downright bad. A random out of context paragraph from the Supreme Court of Montana in a case not about IPR, interpreting part of a statute unrelated to IPR, is not where definitions should come from. There is no intent to define and also not even how courts look to defining things. Affs can and should use this to their advantage.

samuel.juhl@dmschools.org

I am in my 4^th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.

LD/PF

Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.

Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.

I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.

I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.

Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.

Congressional debate

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.

Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.

If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

Speech

I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.

Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.

Been involved in debate for over 20 years. Coached mostly PF and Congress, however have judged all events at just about every level.

Speed is fine in LD and policy, but in pf do not sacrifice clarity for speed.

Theory should ONLY ever be used if there is a real violation in the round that skews it greatly.

I like numbers, I will favor an economic impact over a general good of humanity argument. No warm fuzzies.

I HATE performance in any way shape or form. This will end the round for me. If you want to do a passion project go do OO.

Debate the topic. Tie your arguments to the topic. As long as you can establish a clear link we are good to go.

Mostly just ask what you want to know, I am pretty open and just like good debate.

Email for chains Akkrell@hotmail.com

General Info

I debated public forum all through high school and have done LD and Parli for almost four years years now in college. I am familiar with technical debate from simple T-shells all the way up to Debate Ks. I can also evaluate on the surface level of standard cost/benefit analysis.

Winning my Ballot

Weighing mechanism and impacts are important for me. Tell me what I should vote on and why that means I should vote for you, this includes T and theory. I will not vote on those, if you don't tell me why they matter in the round. You can win on abstract weighing, such as mode of thought arguments, but you need to explain why they're bad. I am a heavy flow debater, so I appreciate sign posting and structure. Ink on the flow is important, dropping arguments can make it very hard to win.

Alongside that, for PF especially you should have a weighing mechanism in case. 1, it helps me understand the theme. 2, it puts all your cards on the table at the start.

Also if you argue nuke war, hope your opponent doesn't question it, because I am highly skeptical of claims that any kind of provocation is going to lead to a nuclear apocalypse. If you can demonstrate an imbalance of nuclear capabilities that is truly significant, you have a chance. Probability will still be low, but I will actually weigh it. Generally though, I don't like low probability-high impact arguments. Along with that, if you say something that is manifestly untrue, it's going to be very easy for your opponent to beat the claim ex. saying that State governments are the same as the federal government. And I don't like deontology as a criterion. It's super common and it doesn't work very often. Please use something else, virtue ethics would be my recommendation.

In any debate format, please avoid just reading cards at me. I appreciate clear, simple statements of impacts and links. I care a lot less about what some author says, than I do about your ability to synthesize information and arguments. (P.S. changing speeds will help with this. You can go faster on cards, then in analytics or tags).

Technical Arguments

Overview - I love LD, but Public forum is a different style. Speeding, Theory and K should be kept in LD and policy, so PF remains accessible. That means that everything I'm about to say doesn't apply to PF. For PF, be much more conversational and avoid shells of any variety, unless you really need to. I will add that for speed you should match the speed of your opponent if possible as a competitive courtesy.

CP - Not sure if this belongs in tech, but oh well. CPs need don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, but it needs to be substantially different. Otherwise, the debate turns into a really mushy thing were it's really hard to distinguish between aff and neg voters.

Ks - I love Ks and am very familiar with the literature, particularly for Cap Ks. The flipside of that is if you do not actually understand your Ks, I will be able to tell. Identity Ks should only be run if 1. there is genuine discriminatory language and 2. you've asked your opponent not to use the language and they refused. If your opponent misgenders you once, you don't correct them, and then you run a K, I'm going to vote you down for leveraging your identity to win the round. Please give your opponents the opportunity to correct themselves, it is very important. K Affs are a risky strat, I think they tend to frustrate neg and serve to derail the event. You can run them, but a) there should still be some kind of plan text or advocacy and b) it should still be topical.

Theory - As above, I will vote on theory above anything else, you just have to explain why I should. I also will not vote for a T or Theory if you can't prove abuse. Not necessarily in-round abuse, but I need you to show me something, modeling is a good argument here. Disclosure theory in particular is unpersuasive to me, I've been very successful in LD debate with very little use of the Wiki, so I'm skeptical that it's abusive.

T - I will primarily evaluate T-shells based on interpretations, so make sure you have a good reason why I should prefer yours. Also don't forget impacts. If you prove your opponent breaks a rule, but not that it caused any problems, why is it a rule I should follow? Please don't run multiple Ts in the same speech. It's annoying, and it distracts from actual topic education, and I will be very open to an argument that you should be automatically voted down for just trying to skew Aff out of the round.

PF - Pleeeaassee don't speed in PF. I will understand you, but I will not be happy.

Closing Thoughts

The primary purpose of debate is education and competition. If you're being rude to your opponent in anyway- either doing any "isms" or just general rudeness -your speaker points will suffer. Be respectful. Be intelligent. And most of all be cool!

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

I was a national circuit debater and then a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand things that don't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

It has become common to see debaters read for full speeches with minimal line-by-line or clash. I don't think many judges really enjoy that, but I have a strong aversion. If you don't even try to think on your feet, you may win, but your speaks will disappoint you.

Please do not be mean or rude, or spread or read technical strategies versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. I enjoy good traditional rounds.