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 (both emails):
herdman@usd259.net
erdman.hannah@gmail.com

- 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.

Note: When reading my ballot, I will give feedback on the argumentation and warrants in evidence. I will highlight if ideas are not accurate or true, but I won't vote on my own knowledge. I will only vote on items said in round. I say this because my ballot may come off like judge intervention, but I will try to be very clear on what I heard in round that caused me to vote and what opportunities you missed.

I approach side debate like court cases - the SQ has presumption of innocence the aff has to prove that a change is warranted. Presumption can win my ballot for the neg if the aff is unprepared. That being said - I will only vote on arguments that are extended from evidence read in round. I won't vote on arguments presented from "What if scenarios". If you, as the neg, say "What if Trump kills the plan" then you better read evidence saying he will, otherwise I will vote for the aff on what we know will happen.

Step 1: I pref fairness always - with that in mind. I believe debate to be a game of rules to establish fair round within the context of topic education.

So - I will NOT VOTE FOR A K AFF. (If they run a K aff, just run T and keep it through the round and you win my ballot)

I am not saying that complex argumentation is not welcome but out of predictable fairness the aff job is to affirm the resolution - not affirm any school of thought.

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking - at the end of the day I believe survivability of this activity hinges on the idea that this is a game, but one that emphasis communication.

Outside of that, I'm tabularasa (I spend most of the rounds just listening for the words "Judge, vote on this issue" If both sides say vote for this issue - tell me why your issue is better than your opponents. Think of it like the Voter debate on T.

CP - I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me especially if weighted in the round. I'm fine with generic links so long as your provide the explanation through analysis on how it links to the 1AC when you read it. Don't just post doc throw it out there after pressed.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive and the negative can contradict itself - conditionality doesn't shield you. I won't vote on vagueness because the aff doesn't have plan planks. If they do indeed make themselves a moving target - point it out and I'll probably vote on it.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Show specific examples in the violation. Time suck T or poorly extended T drive me nuts. T drives me nuts.

I will always vote on warrant presses - if their tag says "Donald Trump will do X" then there should be a sentence in the card that echos that. Power-tagging will kill you on speaks for me, if not cost you the whole round.

As far as case arguments - I am a firm believer in the burden of proof of the 1AC. The plan text should absolutely align with the solvency cards. Don't just make loose assumptions. You have infinite prep time, it's not hard to find cards that support your plan - if you can't - it's a bad plan. Brining up more specific evidence in the 2A is abusive in my eyes.

I will always want to be on the speech drop. If you have a paper copy of evidence I may ask you for a digital version.

I hate national circuit norms regarding cross-x (it should be closed, imo), and general ego flexing. Stand up when you give your speeches, don't do open speeches, treat each other and me with respect, and while I don't care about clothing choices because I understand the barriers economically that can occur, If you roll in wearing sweats and a "I <3 MILFS" shirt/ sweater, I'm not gonna lie...I will be looking for any reason to vote you down. There is such a thing as too far in the opposite direction of hyper-professionalism.

If you read this far - good job. I apologize if I come off nit-picky but as debate is a public speaking activity, if I am your only judge, you should try to meet me where I am at. If I am on a panel and you choose not to go for me, I get it and I won't be upset. I respect you for using your voice to speak whatever truth you are advocating for, but if it kills competitive equity then I will respect it, but not vote for it.

Any other questions - please ask.

Xoxo- Gossip Girl