KSHSAA 5A State Speech and Drama Champs
2025 — Great Bend, KS/US
5A State Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideTop level
Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.
***NDT/TOC Update: I have noticed a disturbing trend of more and more teams having evidence ethics issues. This includes but is not limited to: putting the wrong citation for their evidence, leaving out paragraphs in the middle of evidence, and getting information in the citation wrong (date and/or author). The community seems to have different standards for these types of arguments so I want to be explicit about mine. If you make an evidence ethics violation you must end the round and stake the round on the claim. I will then issue my decision based on if I believe there has been an evidence ethics violation. My decision will only be based on if there is in fact an evidence ethics violation. "we didn't mean to", "it wasn't done maliciously", and "we stole this evidence" are all irrelevant to me. You are responsible for the evidence you choose to enter into a debate.
Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.
Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.
I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.
If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.
Planless affirmatives
Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.
"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.
"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.
Framework/T-USFG
Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.
Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.
KvK
Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.
Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.
K's on the neg
If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.
Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.
Topicality
I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.
Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.
Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.
Counterplans
Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...
I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.
I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.
0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.
2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.
Disadvantages
Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.
Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.
Case
Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.
0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.
Misc
I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.
Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.
Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.
Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.
Hello young debater looking at this paradigm moments before speaking to me, as the kids say, IRL. I look forward to seeing your absolute BEST round.
I am a veteran coach (I coach in a time BEFORE computers!), and tend to weigh argumentation and presentation skills equally in round. I am slightly hard of hearing so speaking at a comfortable level is preferable.
I would prefer to keep an accurate/organized flow and would ask for your help in providing roadmaps/signposting and remembering that as a judge, I do not have all of the evidence in front of me. Keep me in the round by communicating your order and arguments clearly.
Thank you for reading this. Do your best.
Clearly outline arguments
Framework is important :warranted offense + line by line defense = RFD
Hello Competitors!
If you’re reading this I’ll assume you’re just moments away from introducing yourselves, shaking my and your opponents’ hands, and readying yourself for an other round. Take a deep breath. You’ve got this.
As for me, I judge based off what I believe will help you most in your futures: well thought out and studied affs, critical thinking in cross examination, well constructed counter points and critiques, respectful sportsmanship, clear speech, and being able to defend your points will serve your future better than speaking at auctioneer speed or being able to read a card that you don’t even know as flawlessly as an Obama.
I’m not the most experienced debate coach and judge, but I take a pretty intense flow so my competitors know what I feel they did well or can improve on by the end of the round. I don’t usually give verbal coaching as you shuffle out of the room, but if you’d like to talk about the round before you leave let me know.
Good luck and don’t mess it up.
Updated - 4.5.2025
Zach Johnson – Sumner Academy Head Debate and Forensics Coach
Experience: First year coach with way more experience in Forensics (Speech and Acting) than Debate. So please go easy on me and don’t expect that I know everything about debate and it’s jargon, over explain if possible. I don’t want to be a disservice to your round. So cater your arguments like I’m a lay judge. No hard feelings if you strike me.
File Share: Prefer SpeechDrop, but email works if needed.
Philosophy: Debate is an educational space that should be welcoming and accessible. Be good humans first, good debaters second. Speed is fine, but clarity is key.
Speed: Do not spread. Clarity and consistency is crucial to me.
Equity & Accessibility: Any discrimination or toxicity won’t be tolerated. Let me know if you need accommodations, tech or otherwise.
Speaker Points: Be persuasive, strategic, and maybe make me laugh for a bonus.
Questions? Ask before the round. Good luck!
I am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.
maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)
assistant coach at de soto
jeanninealopez@gmail.com
i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy arguments
i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over k's is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen, but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplan/disad strategies, so i know those best, but run what you know best
speed is fine only if you are clear
your speech is over once your timer goes off -- you can take a few words to finish a sentence, but anything else that you say isn't going to be on my flow
please ask questions if you have any
I am a High School assistant debate coach, as well as a High School science teacher. My background in debate is that debated a few years in High School myself, so please do not waste your time with explaining the rules of debate to myself or your opponents. I believe that all topics are debatable, but ensure that you explain the relevance of your evidence and the connection to the argument. Although you may bring attention to topicality issues, this should not be the center of your argument. I favor sound arguments backed up with multiple sources of scientific evidence, so ensure that you provide clear tags / authors. I do not have a preference for style choices, I am open to all styles of debate. Presenting a thorough case is important, so I need to be able to understand you. Avoid extreme speed reading and burrowing your face into your computer screen. Although this is a competition, be careful with your word choice and "attacks" on your opponents. I do not favor taunting or personal attacks. Stick to the case and the debate topics.
I competed for four years in Kansas Policy Debate, primarily as 1A and 1N, and in Forensics performing in Prose Interpretation, Improvised Duet Acting and Duo Interp. I have judged at various points over the past 20 years since graduation.
In Debate, I prefer informed argumentation with not just evidence provided but a clear grasp of what the evidence means. I note key points and counter points in my flow, preferring to focus on the main arguments rather than conceding small points that are spread in for breadth rather than as a strong argument. I strongly consider command of the argument as much as the argument itself. If a debater reads a brief he or she knows is related but when pressed if cannot explain why it is related, the argument will fall flat for me.
I appreciate an intro and a summary of your speech when time allows to give direction of where you are heading for flow purposes.
Debaters should remain cordial and understand it is a game of respectful persuasion.
I have 50% hearing loss, I would appreciate it if competitors could speak clearly and enunciate! I would love it if I could read your lips but if you prefer to wear your mask, please do the above mentioned.
Please also note that I usually cannot keep up with speedy fast speaking, because of the hearing loss. Please slow down.
Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano
Current Affiliation: Kansas State University
Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.
List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:
- Real world impacts.
- Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
- Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)
List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:
- Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
- Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.
Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.
List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:
- Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Impact Calc.
List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:
- Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
- Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.
Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.
Xanna Joy Smith (She/Her)
Hi! My name is Xanna Joy and I have debated all 4 years while I was in high school.
I am a flow judge and will keep track of all arguments made in round. I would also like to be included in your speechdrop or email chain. My email is xannajoysmith2005@gmail.com
(If you have any questions please ask me before the debate round starts)
Solvency- Solvency is the most important stock issue for me as a judge. If you are affirmative, you need to prove to me that you solve for the harms in the status quo, even if the negative doesn't bring it up. If you are the negative, you need to prove to me that the affirmative won't solve such harm.
Topicality- I do not like generic topicality, not saying I won't vote on them if they are run correctly. When running a topicality in a round I need the negative to prove to me that the affirmative is truly in violation of the resolution. When you have to cherry-pick to make your topicality make sense, it's not worth running in a round.
Disads-If you are the negative and you don't run a disadvantage whatsoever you most likely have lost the debate round. (with few exceptions). Run at least 1 disad.
Kritiks-I will vote on a Kritik if you explain it well enough to me (This includes Aff-K's). Although not my favorite argument, Kritiks does bring something unique to a debate round and if it is done right, I will vote on it.
Theory-I don't like a theory, but similar to kritiks, if you can explain it to me then I would vote on it. But I don't think that theory should be your main argument.
Spreading-I really do not like spreading. I view spreading as very abusive towards the affirmative team. That being said, if you are affirmative you still have to answer the arguments but also show me how they are leaving you with no ground in the debate round.
Discrimination-As a judge, I will not stand with discrimination at play in a debate round. If either team is Homophobic, Racist, Sexist, etc. I will not stand for it in a debate round. Along with that, I will not discriminate against any person based on such things as a judge.
I have been an assistant coach for around 12 years.
I do not value any one type of argument over another or automatically discount any type of argument. Anything is game.
That said, topicality should be reserved for when it's blatant or should only be pursued by teams who have a history of arguing it well. (In other words, I've seen a lot of bad attempts at topicality.)
Make sure you are listening to the other side and actually addressing what they are saying. Teams often don't read everything in their doc and nothing drives me crazy like a team arguing against evidence that wasn't read.
I do value good communication. I can't give you credit for an argument that I can't understand. That said, I am okay with speed as long as it is still enunciated well.