Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KCKCCdebate

KCKCC TOC Preferences Now Available

Recommended Posts

Teams coming to the KCKCC TOC/DCI qualifier this weekend:

 

I have just emailed your coaches the judge preference sheet as well as the judge philosophies for all judges. These are due by 11pm tomorrow night to assure they are in effect for rd 1.

 

I will only accept pref forms back from coaches, unless they authorize me via email to accept them from individual teams or debaters.

 

I will post below the same list of judges, and the philosophies. This way you can get started on them on your own tonight before seeing your coaches at school tomorrow. This might expedite the process, or give you something to do on this Halloween night. But again, I will only accept forms from your coaches.

 

Let me know if you have questions! Email me at delliott@kckcc.edu

 

chief

ABEL, DAVID

I will listen to most arguments provided the debaters offer warrants for them. I am old school on CPs, if it's topical I'm affirming the resolution. Tell my where you want me to decide the round and that is where I will look, otherwise I will have to make it up and you may not like that!

--

BIETH,

Beith—Little Rock Central

Slower on Tags

Signpost

Underviews

Weigh the round

--

BONNET, SCOTT

Scott W. Bonnet

Head Coach- Emporia HS, Emporia, Kansas

Experience: 4 years high school debate, 2 years NDT college debate, 22 years coach

Speed Preference: Speed is okay, but keep it clear.

Philosophy of Debate: I believe that this activity should serve a higher purpose than simply functioning as a game. Policy debate is a problem-solving activity. As such, it should serve to help us answer the question, “What should we do about this?” Questions of epistemology, genealogy, cosmology, philosophy and hermeneutics hold little sway with me, if they fail to help me answer that fundamental question. The resolution is paramount. The primary function of plan is to serve as a representation of said resolution. The affirmative should affirm, the negative should negate, and therefore I don’t want to hear PICS or topical counter-plans. I am a real-world kinda guy, so probability resides at the top of my decision calculus. I hate “big lie” affs and disads.

Kritiks: I’ll listen to them, but they’d better apply and there’d better be an alternative with solvency ev.

Bottom Line: The better story wins the round. Don’t expect me to fill in the blanks in your stories for you. If you didn’t say it, I assume you don’t know it. Buzz words do nothing, but irritate me.

--

BRACKMANN, MARTHA

Martha Brackmann

Lincoln College Preparatory Academy

KCMSD

I did not debate competitively in high school or college.

I’ve been a head high school coach for 10 years.

# of rounds on this year’s topic – 3

I am a policy maker.

The aff burdens should be to uphold the resolution, to prove there’s a significant problem and that their plan will solve, that it is the best option in the round.

The neg burdens should be to prove that the aff plan is flawed, can’t solve, will cause a worse scenario than the SQ, is off-topic, or that their case, or the resolution, should be critiqued for some reason.

Speed – I can take fair speed, but the tag lines need to be slow. I pound the desk when debaters get too fast for me to flow.

DA’s, CP’s, and K’s need some kind of defendable link or, if aff points out its omission, the argument’s gone.

--

BRETCHES, MICHAEL

Name_Michael Bretches

School Washburn Rural HS

# of years debated in HS 4 What School Hutchinson HS

# of years debated in College 2 What College/University University of Kansas

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach ___x__Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __10_

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

___x__Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

I feel the Aff should provide a plan that is an instance of the resolution. The plan should be literal and advocated.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

The Neg should prove the status quo or a competitive policy option/alternative is more desirable than the plan.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Whatever you want to do is fine.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Generics are fine. Specific links are even better. I feel much more comfortable judging disad and counterplan debates.

I come from the camp that Kritiks ought to have an alternative and that alternative ought to be able to be articulated in a way where we can see specific instances of how the world would be different. You need to tell me if the alternative will solve the case.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

I think they are very powerful and not used nearly enough. I would like to see people mitigating advantages, not just trying to outweigh them.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

My average speaker point is a 27.5 or a 28.

I tend to reward smart arguments. I tend to punish people who are rude enough to make the round unenjoyable.

--

BRETTHAUER, JOHN

I Currently Debate at Illinois State.

I debated for 3 years at KCKCC.

I think debate is for the debaters. Do what you want and run your args. My partner and I are big fans of procedurals so do not be afraid to run T, or a spec argument. Likewise if you are aff you should answer these and not blow them off. I will vote on any argument. If you have wipeout, spark, anarchy, etc and that’s your thing, bring it. If you like straight up disads and cp’s, cool. If you roll with the K, I can roll too.

Speed is fine, be clear.

Watch me. I think I give good non-verbals.

--

BRICKER, BRETT

***Brett Bricker

 

4 years high school, 4th year of college debate

 

I think arguments should have a claim and a warrant, and I use an

offense/defense when determining argument comparisons. It's hard to

be negative, I tend to believe PICs and conditionality are OK, but I

could be persuaded otherwise. I lean to the right in most of my

argument choice, and I would much rather see a politics and

counterplan debate instead of a debate about zizek. Lastly, a dropped

argument is a true argument, so you should answer things if you want

to win arguments.

--

BURGETT, CINDY

Cindy Burgett

 

Washburn Rural High School

 

# of years debated in HS 2 What School Shawnee Heights

 

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University_____________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) __X__Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

__X__Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 10

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__X___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

To prevent a prima facie case and defend it against whatever the negative brings to the table to negate it.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

To present compelling reason(s) for why I should reject the affirmative.

 

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I can take a fair amount of speed, but I can’t flow it as fast as the fastest team can spew it. Clarity and flowability are critical for me: if I can’t understand what a debater says, it isn’t an argument, and if the delivery is too blippy to be able to keep up with the flow, arguments are going to be lost and telling me that I ought to have those when we get to rebuttals is not going to help a bunch.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I don’t really care if a disad is generic if it has a plausible link. Reasonable (extant, even) internal links are also nice. I will also listen to and vote for counterplans and reasonable theory about them, although I am less than enamored with pics, and the more complicated the theory gets – especially if teams are offering little or no analysis – the more likely I am to be lost and choose to reject the cp for a decent reason aff may give me to do so. I am not a huge fan of the K. That being said, I will vote for one if a team wins the debate over it. Of all theory knowledge, mine is sketchiest on kritiks, so I hate trying to evaluate them in a policy round, but I will, to the best of my ability, provided the team running one gives me plenty of cogent analysis

How I feel about case debates?

I loves me some case debate, but almost no one does anything but solvency anyway, so whatever…

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

Make sure that the last rebuttals give me a clear idea of what you want for me to vote on. If you have had a food fight during the round (throwing a million arguments out to see what will stick), you had better clean it up and tell me what FEW arguments are important that you want for me to vote on. If you expect me to wade through the arguments you have vomited on the flow and you have not weighed them in the final rebuttals, please don’t complain if you feel I have intervened. I will vote on the stuff you tell me to vote on, assuming you have collapsed to some kind of clear story.

Have fun in the round. If you’re enjoying yourself, I will probably enjoy myself too. I’m not a big fan of mean people – that’s not fun. I love a good sense of humor displayed in speeches, but jokes shouldn’t be at the expense of others’ feelings.

--

CASE, AUSTIN

School: UMKC/KCKCC

# of years debated in HS 4 What School West Des Moines, Iowa

 

# of years debated in College 3 or so What College/University: Emporia State then KCKCC then UMKC

 

Currently a (check all that apply): College Student. Asst. Coach

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic: very few

 

Very successful HS and College Debater. TOC qualifier in HS. National Champion in Debate for KCKCC.

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

I am ok with you doing whatever you want as long as you justify it.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

If you can go fast and be clear, do it. If you prefer to go slow, I wont penalize you.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

Again, run whats in the tub. There is nothing I wont vote on if you win it.

How I feel about case debates?

 

If you got it, bring it. If not, win something offcase.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions: Have fun, be smart, debate hard.

--

CHRISTENSEN, DANA

Name Dana Christensen

 

School Milard South

 

# of years debated in HS 4 What School Millard North

 

# of years debated in College 1 What College/University University of Iowa

 

Currently a (check all that apply) Asst. HS Coach, Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 6

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

Tabula Rasa who defaults to Policymaker

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Critcal cases are cool, but I generally think the Aff should defend the resolution. But I'm easy, so feel free to prove otherwise.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

Negate

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Fast

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

I will vote on T and don't mind it, but I prefer substance. Other than that, run whatever you want.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Sweet

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

COLLIER, LINDA

Linda Collier's Judging Philosophy

 

My background is as a college coach at UMKC. Please ask questions before the round if these remarks don't answer your questions.

 

General Issues-

Best evidence trumps more evidence, especially if you fail to make those comparisons or explanation--you should examine and compare the evidence read in the round--that practice can be the basis for good arguments; I prefer substantive issues over theory and abuse arguments, but see below for details; I probably don't flow as quickly as others, so slow down a bit to guarantee I get everything.

 

Theory Arguments-

I will vote on theory, but it should be a clear, clean win. If not, go for something else if possible. My personal feelings are that dispositional counterplans are fair but I'm not so sure about conditional counterplans. Please note-- theory arguments require substantial development and explanation to create a "W."

 

 

Topicality Arguments-

As with Theory arguments, good technical debate is critical to a win on T. A ballot on T will require a significant level of offense in favor of your interpretation and a thorough explanation. I'll need to see a tangible ground loss impact. Please extend warrants (I recommend using examples) for why your interpretation is better. If you don't, don't expect me to fill in the blanks for you.

 

Counterplans & Disads-

I encourage you to run them.

 

Kritiks-

Less of a favorite because I'm far less familiar with the literature. Also, know up front it is critical that you both have an alternative and that it solves or at least turns the case. This is very challenging material--if this is your favorite, make sure you know the evidence and can clearly explain yourself.

 

--

CROCKETT, CLAY

KCKCC Debate

My philosophy when it comes to debate is that it is your activity which means that you get to determine the direction the debate goes. The only caveat to that is you MUST extend your impacts/implications and tell me how the arguments interact. For example, if you read a disad that impacts in nuclear war and the terminal impact to the 1AC is also nuclear war you MUST tell me how those two scenarios interact. Which one comes first? Which one is bigger? This is the classic timeframe, magnitude, and probability discussion, but it needs to happen on all issues so that I know how to evaluate each position in relation to the others.

In terms of specific argumentative preferences…I enjoy a good T and theory debate. Notice I did not say two second blips. I think that T and Theory debates are underutilized tools that have links and impacts just like every other argument. I am also a huge fan of “the cheapshot.” That being said, simply saying the word voter does NOT make an argument. You need to give me coherent reasons as to why I should pull the trigger automatically and spend some time there if you want me to vote on it, but I certainly will.

Disads & CP: Perfect. These are great debates and I don’t see enough of them anymore. Bring them on!

The K: I view the K like any other argument, but there are a couple of things that I NEED to hear in order to vote on the K on good conscience. First, if you would like me to view the world of debate through a different lens (IE through a feminist perspective) than you NEED to tell me that, and make sure you give reasons as to why your framework would be uniquely better than whatever the opposing team chooses as their framework or my default to policymaking. Bottom line: Framework debates are a necessity. Lastly, Explain and Impact the Alternative. You need to show me what the world of the K looks like and give me reasons as to why I would want to operate in that world as opposed to whatever world the opposing team is showing me.

Two Pet peeves: First, Please do not refer to me as “judge.” I know who I am and hopefully so should you. Finally, you can read the text of your evidence as fast as you want, but pause for just one second in between the author’s last name and date so that I can differentiate between the site and the text of the evidence. That being said, if I can’t understand you I will yell “clear”. If you do not clear up I will drop my pen and stop flowing. You have been warned!

DEFEND WHAT YOU DO, HAVE FUN, AND REMEMBER HUMOR IS ALWAYS APPRECIATED!

--

DELAUGHDER, KEN

Ken DeLaughder: Washburn Univ. Law School

KCKCC Asst. Coach

 

If you don't know me by now, get to know me. You can run whatever you want if it makes sense.

 

I love Killer Strats.

I don’t like crappy arguments

 

I like sweet disads and PICS and Ks

MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS and DONT BE LAME

 

In the end, be smart, weigh your arguments, do what you do best.

let's have fun... really.

 

--

DUBIN, TJ

School KCKCC

 

# of years debated in HS 3 What School Shawnee Mission North

 

# of years debated in College 3 What College/University Emporia State University/ KCKCC

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach X College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 0

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

X Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

To prove why the resolution is a good idea and your case should be adopted. Or why your methodology behind the topic should be endorsed.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

Prove why the Aff is a bad idea or how they use flawed methodology or prove why the SQ is better

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

As fast as you are comfortable with

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I will evaluate anything I am told to. Its your job to tell me how to vote. Although I have been a more critical debator

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

If the case is a bad idea then i won't vote for it.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I love the game aspect of debate. I think a few judges get caught up in there own world about what they like and don't like and have biases towards them, i try to vote on anything that is articulated well

--

DUBOIS, STEVE

Name___Steve DuBois________________________

 

School____St. Thomas Aquinas______________________

 

# of years debated in HS___4____ What School_____Topeka HS

(KS)__________________________

 

# of years debated in College_1___ What College/University__UNI, Beloit

(WI)___________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) __X__Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS

Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _5___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Affirmative should present a topical plan and maintain advocacy of it

throughout the round.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

Negative should present me with an ideologically consistent and

specific alternative to the affirmative plan and maintain advocacy of it

throughout the round. If that alternative is not the status quo, I

would like it to be a specific policy proposal with a text.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

No major preference. Take the edge off when speeding through

analyticals; I'm old.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

Generic DAs fine. CPs welcome. Ks open to discussion--I am usually

more persuaded by them as net benefits to a specific policy alternative

than I am by them as stand-alone positions with a non-policy

"alternative" tacked onto the end for the sake of tradition. For

instance: if you must run the Foucault thing, I'm much likelier to buy

it if you couple it with a counterplan that eliminates specific

manifestations of biopower than if you just tell me to "rethink".

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Always a good idea. Seriously, mitigators CAN help you. Still, the

negative will almost always need some offense to win my ballot.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

ELLIOTT, DARREN

Darren Elliott aka “Chief”

Director of Debate KC KS Community College

Debated in HS: 4 years.

Debated in College: 4 years Emporia State

Years Coaching/Judging College: 11

 

I believe debate should be hard work and assume you all work hard. As such I will work extremely hard to be a fair and thorough judge. I don’t intervene unless forced to. I will vote on cheap shots, dropped voting issues, and discourse if it is proven to be the decision calculus. Left to my default, I will weigh the impacts of the Aff versus the impacts of the Neg. Take nothing for granted. I start from the belief that debate is debatable. I am tabula gumbo—I like a little bit of everything in debate! Within that framework here are some thoughts:

 

I have not judged many rounds on the current HS topic but I did run a lab at KU this summer and am very familiar with most of the arguments and have a lot of exposure to literature concerning Africa. If you are using acronyms however, you might want to indicate what they stand for early on in the debate.

Affirmative: Debatable.

 

Negative: Debatable.

 

Counterplans: Can be whatever you want ‘em to be: If challenged on your theory, be prepared to defend it. I don’t mind if counterplans are topical or non-topical. Defend your theory. While I don’t mind either way, I will vote for topical cp’s bad if the aff wins that argument. I will vote for topical cp’s good if the neg wins that argument.

 

Topicality: Usually a voter though I can be persuaded why it shouldn’t be in a particular debate. I am persuaded by the argument that topicality is a gateway argument or the “ticket to the dance”. I don’t mind if an Aff. pushes the limits, but again be prepared to defend your interpretation of the topic. I think Topicality is the one check Negs. have to protect themselves. Good topicality debates are sadly rare these days.

 

Disads: Link debate, link debate, link debate. Point out flaws in people’s evidence. Internal links anyone? You don’t have to have a 100 cards answering the disad if the neg has no internal link between plan causing x to happen and that x causing y to happen. Just stand up and say no internal link and make an argument. The reverse is true for case debates. Negs. should be more willing to point out the flaws of internal links on the case advantages.

 

Kritiks: Spelled with a k or a c they can be useful. They can also be a blemish on the face of debate. But to me a bad k is no different than a bad t argument or bad disad. Likewise good arguments are good arguments. You do have to show how it relates to my decision calculus and why it gets top billing at the end of the debate. What function does my ballot serve? If your K is really a non-unique disad in drag, don’t be afraid to say so and just make linearity, and “every instance pushes us closer to the brink” arguments.

Cross-ex: Be nice, be purposeful, and be funny if appropriate.

 

Evidence: I like it. I used to read it myself in debates. I might read it after debates these days. Yea, evidence can be fun. At the same time it can be oppressive, elitist, and a function of the hegemony of modern debate. Or so I’ve been told. Do with it what you will. The only thing I insist on is that you only present what you read and know what you read. If you underline or highlight evidence do not try and say you read more of the evidence than you actually did.

My Ballot: My default is a policy making paradigm. But I can be persuaded I am a “policy maker”, an “intellectual endorser”, an “educator”, a “trial judge”, a “congressperson”, an “activist”, a “guest” on the Oprah Winfrey show, or a myriad of other things. I think policy debate serves a very useful function—pretending to be lawmakers and discussing the merits of proposals has a lot of benefit. But I know not everyone comes to debate with that purpose. For some it is intellectual discovery or dreams of activism. If that is the framework you want to go for, do what you do, and do it well. Tell me what role I should serve and why it is best for the process (academic debate) we are involved in. Give me reasons (you might refer to them as impacts in traditional debate) why I should subscribe to your world view.

2NR/2AR: I think you would be wise to discuss the arguments you think you are winning and weigh out those impacts against your opponents. This often includes the size of your impacts, the likelihood they will happen, and which impacts come first. Good last rebuttals will identify what you are winning, what the other team might be winning, and how your arguments still win you the debate.

My Likes: Debaters who make smart arguments, debaters who are not afraid to stick to their guns and debate how they have been taught, fun debaters who have fun debating, nice people in cross-ex, and the fact that debate in the MidWest is the most vibrant and best debate in the country.

My Dislikes: Rudeness, exclusion from debates, prep time thieves, debaters who hover over their opponents as they read, not enough hours in the day at tournaments, no hot water in the hotel room, hypocritical debaters and judges, people who think they know all there is to know about debate and close off discussions.

Have fun. Feel free to ask questions—I reserve the right to clarify my intent.

 

--

FUGATE, NOAH

Name_Noah Fugate

 

School__KCKCC

 

# of years debated in College__1__ What College/University: KCKCC

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____ College Coach ___X__College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __6__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker ___x__Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? Case, must defend the consequences of plan.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Anything they run.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast or slow doesn’t bother me either way. But if fast, be clear.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? Can run a kritik only if you explain it well. Disads are fine as long as there is a clear link, and counterplans are fine with a big net benefit. I have to know the status of the CP and the K.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates make more sense.

--

GARRETT, DAVID

Pueblo South

NO PHILOSOPHY SUBMITTED

--

GEARHART, ZACHARY

Name: Zachary Gearhart

School: Goddard

# of years debated in HS___4____ What School: Goddard

 

# of years debated in College__0__ What College/University:

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____ College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __8__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? All on case. Problem with SQ. Rebuff all off case.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Uphold the resolution.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? No generic disads, kritiks ok as long as you have a CP, Counterplans must be non-topical.

How I feel about case debates? Solvency is more important to me than the other stock issues.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

GERRITY, TJ

Name TJ Gerrity

School SM West

# of years debated in HS 3 What School SM West

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University KU

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach Asst. HS Coach

College Coach College Debater

Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 0

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Policy Maker Stock Issues Tabula Rasa

Games Player Hypothesis Tester Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Present a Prima Facia case and defend against all neg attacks, outweighing neg impacts

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

Illustrate well-founded reasons to vote against the affirmative case

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Quick, but don't speed.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Prefer specific links to DAs (impacts can be generic). CPs are OK. Prefer no Kritiks.

How I feel about case debates?

Love. I feel love.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

--

GREENWALD, DAVID

Name David Greenwald

School SM West

# of years debated in HS 4 What School SM West

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University KU

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach Asst. HS Coach

College Coach College Debater

Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 0

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Policy Maker Stock Issues Tabula Rasa

Games Player Hypothesis Tester Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Present a Prima Facia case and defend against all neg attacks, outweighing neg impacts

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

Illustrate well-founded reasons to vote against the affirmative case

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Quick, but don't speed.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Prefer specific links to DAs (impacts can be generic). CPs are fine. Prefer no Kritiks.

How I feel about case debates?

Love. I feel love.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

GRICE, JOHN

John Grice

Kansas State University Debate—Current Freshman

Africa topic rounds judged—25

Background

Debated 4 year at Manhattan High School and cleared at this tournament last year. Currently, I am a freshman on the Kansas State debate team. My affirmative currently is very policy and my negative strategy usually consists of a T violation, counter-plan, several disads or a criticism, and case debate.

What I like?

Well explained and developed arguments with detailed explanations. If you need to throw generic arguments at them, feel free. Just know that I am more likely to vote on well articulated and specific links. Also, you will drastically increase your chance of winning and reducing judge intervention if you provide impact calculus in the rebuttals.

Debaters that are funny, treat their opponents with respect, and their opponents arguments in a thorough manner.

Negatives that state clearly in the 1nc the nature of their Advocacies and extremely briefly state in the C-X what

they mean by "dispositional, conditional, etc."

 

Presentation

I like fast and clear speakers. If not fast, you can still be efficient. I’m no speed demon. This may not be your style and I will not dock your speaks because of this preference. If not clear, you will get lower speaker points and be sad when I can’t comprehend your argument.

Strategically planned cross-exes

 

Advocacies

(Permutations, Plans, and Other competing alternatives) to have a clear text I can comprehend -

unless the point of your argument is not to have one.

 

Voting Issues/Theory

Just because you call it one, does not mean I will vote on it. A voting issue is a reason that a team introduced an

argument that profoundly shapes the debate. I tend to think that illegitimate perms are a reason to throw out the permutation, not a voting issue. I am a fan of PICs and other counter-plans that may be considered “abusive.” But of course, there is a line and I think the affirmative should attempt to find it and make it a voting issue. However, I have voted affirmative against a counter-plan because the neg. lost the PICs good/bad debate. I look to theory as if it were a disad rather than many blippy arguments. If it becomes the latter, I will have trouble not intervening. ASPEC, ISPEC, ESPEC, PSPEC, etc, will not win my ballot unless the affirmative is making the debate impossible because of their advocacy.

 

Topicality

I am very fond of this argument and believe that it should be in almost every debate (few exceptions). This does not mean I would like to have multiple T flows or non applicable arguments in the round, but that my tendency is to reward negatives who can prove the affirmative’s case is not topical and that this is a reason they should lose. You must not forget the impact level of Topicality to win my ballot.

Framework

Very good but if you win policy maker (or whatever you like) this is more of a reason for the debate to be a advantages v. disadvantages (or CP v Plan) than an immediate voting issue.

Critical Arguments

I assume the negative is defending the status quo, unless clearly articulated and defended otherwise. Just make sure you alternative solves the affirmative or at least turns their advocacy. I do appreciate discussions of the role of the judge so as to determine how to evaluate critical arguments. Please do enough work to explain your argument because I have not read all critical literature.

Overall, tell me how and where to vote and this will be an easy round. I’m a lighthearted, humorous guy and enjoy all kinds of debate. So stick to your guns and debate what makes you comfortable. I will work hard to evaluate your argument as best as possible.

--

GROEBLACHER, JULIA

St Thomas Aquinas

NO PHILOSOPHY SUBMITTED

--

HAMILTON, JAKE

Name: Jake Hamilton

School: Maize

4 Years HS debate at Washburn Rural HS.

0 Years College debate

I am open to most anything, but would probably lean more towards the policy side of things. I will listen to kritiks, but am not as familiar with the literature on them, so make sure they are explained very well. I do like theory debates, but would rather not have both teams stand up and read prewritten blocks; I want actual analysis on the theory to weigh it. Also, one word responses don't count as arguments, so elaborate on them. In summary, I will listen to anything that you have to say as long as you have warrants to go along with them. I will default to a policy make paradigm if I am not put in one, but I am willing to vote in any paradigm that is warranted in the round. Speed is not really an issue as long as it is clear; if I can't understand you, I won't flow that argument. If i'm not flowing an argument, you will know either from my facial reaction or my pen being on the desk. Last, organization is a big deal to me, so keeping an order would be nice instead of jumping around the flow. Along with that point, numbering/lettering your responses will help me find them faster. If you have any other questions, you can ask me in person

--

HARRIS, SPENCER

Spencer Harris

Affiliation-Greenwood Lab

I’m easy. I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not my personal bias. What it comes down to: I want to have fun in rounds, I am there to evaluate who does a better job, and that’s all, but I would love for it to be enjoyable. Do what you want and how you want…I write down what happens and then evaluate it…

Background- I’ve been competing for 8 years, if you have any questions about whether or not I can keep up, you’re more than welcome to ask.

Paradigm- I’m straight up tab, I’ll generally vote on anything. If no one tells me what to vote on, I default policymaker and avoid playing games. Tell me what you want and I’ll listen. Additionally, just because you tell me doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to defend your philosophy/framework.

Speed- I can generally keep up as long as you’re clear. I have one rule about speed: I yell clear 3 times and then I stop flowing! The choice is yours, but if I don’t have an argument on the flow, it doesn’t get into my decision calculus.

Arguments- I’ll listen to anything. Critical, policymaker, discourse, games, narratives, poetry, stocks…whatever you want.

Lastly, I know this is a weird quirk and you probably won’t hear it out of most critics, but don’t be afraid to go for T in front of me. I love T and I don’t know why…that being said, if you don’t run it I won’t be mad.

Have fun, enjoy yourself, make good decisions and you’ll be fine…good luck!

Spencer Harris

P.S. Refer to me as “Spence” or “Spencer” in rounds, not as “the critic” or “the judge”…I do not like that very much…I also don’t like mean people, so don’t be mean…

--

HARRISON, JANA

Jana Harrison

Edmond North High School

Policy Debate Coach

215 W Danforth Rd

Edmond, OK 73003

Debate Experience

Debated in High School at Edmond Santa Fe in OK

Debated in College At UCO

Fourth year coaching debate

Have taught at UTNIF speech camp in Austin, TX

Have taught at Cameron speech camp in Lawton, OK

I am a tab judge.

Arguments: I listen to all arguments-T, DAs, Ks, C/Ps, Frameworks, Performances, theory, etc…I want to see debaters do what they like-I believe the only way I see you at your best is to observe you running arguments that you are comfortable with. My threshold is higher on theory and procedurals.

Spend plenty of time doing impact/alternative/framework analysis in final speeches. It is frustrating when I have to determine the weight and priority to give to arguments-you tell me what to do with them and we'll be fine. I am very strict about extending arguments from previous speeches. You and your partner both have to do the work to win the debate.

Speaker Point breakdown: I award higher points not just for clarity and persuasion, but also for good decision making, technique and organization. 26-27 is Average, 28 is Good, 29 is Awesome and 30 is Exceptional.

Speed is fine.

--

HARTNEY, GREGG

Coach of Jenks HS in Oklahoma; this is my 32nd year (that's not a misprint) coaching HS debate and I've been judging for longer than that. I am probably one of the older (i.e., conservative) judges in the pool. My default position is that of a policy-maker, but that could change if presented with a reasonable & warranted alternative. I highly value clash in the round and quickly grow impatient with debaters who seek to avoid it. I am not a major fan of kritikal positions but I have voted for them. Kritikal teams should not assume that I have read ANY of the underlying philosophy or tenets of their positions. I understand policymaking as that is what I conceive the event to be; if you want me to judge it on any other basis, it is your job to educate me on the subject. Performative teams should know that while I think I know a fair bit about oral spoken communication & policymaking, I don't know a darn thing about dancing, singing, rapping, or sock puppets. Thus if you use any means other than oral spoken communication to advance your cause, don't be surprised if my evaluation of the performance is at variance with yours.

 

One additional caveat deals with language; I am not a prude and have certainly used "colorful" language, particularly when attempting home or auto repair projects; however, I do not permit students to use profanity in my classroom, and I similarly do not tolerate it in debate rounds I am present for. You may have a right to use the language, but I also have the right not to listen to it. Nothing in my job description suggests that I must listen to you in such circumstances. Consider yourself informed.

 

--

HIBBS, JASON

Jason Hibbs, debate teacher/coach (10 years)– Winfield HS

Years judging – 15

Rounds this year – 12 in KS and IA

Debated in HS – yes, 4 yrs

Debate in college – yes, 2 yrs (one in NDT-style)

Policymaker

I could be described as a moderately fast flow who prefers a “traditional” view of policymaking. Affirmatives should advocate a topical case that includes a plan. I think fiat is important – most likely, I’ll give Aff’s some leeway in the pre/post-fiat debate.

I think Negatives should oppose the Aff – many approaches are possible. I have not yet been convinced that critique arguments automatically qualify as “opposing the Aff” nor have I read the critical literature on the criticism of the week – you’ll have to explain your position and convince me that it truly does warrant a rejection of the Aff plan. Counterplans, theory, generic disadvantages, case debate – these can all be part of your strategy too.

I enjoy friendly debates that include the above strategies. You should speak clearly if you are fast. I don’t look at evidence after rounds, so rebuttals are the time to make those comparisons.

--

HOBBS, JODEE

Name_jodee hobbs__________________________

 

School__Andover Central________________________

 

# of years debated in HS___3____ What School__Fayetteville High School, Fayetteville, AR_____________

 

# of years debated in College__4__ What College/University_Harding University, Searcy, AR____________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) __x__Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____ College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __2 + practice rounds__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker ___x__Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain) A bit of all, I try to let the debaters tell me what to be, my inclination runs to the first two, also narrative (not pretty poetic narrative, but narrative probability and narrative fidelity)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? To present a prima facie case to be argued; need to have some benefit to change

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? To disprove the affirmative in some way

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Relatively fast, it needs to be comprehensible. I will say “clear” or “slow” or something once to a debater

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? Fine to run, there are some that I like more than others. See paradigm and below for further clarification

 

How I feel about case debates? I like them – especially solvency. It is hard to win a round with only case debate, but is possible with case turns etc.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions: Ask me questions, it is easier for me to answer a specific than to try to explain generally. Things to know: I am old enough to be old school. I grew up stock issues and policy. I coached NDT, CEDA, parli, and IPDA teams in college. I genuinely like the activity because of what it can do for students. It gives them the ability to think for themselves. My favorite rounds are those where a team actually listens to the other side and logically points out the contradictions and problems with the other side (there are a lot more problems with argument interaction than are caught in most high school and college rounds). I do not like contradictory positions, but will vote for them if I’m not given a choice. I like topicality and theory arguments – they need to be argued coherently rather than read without explanation. Little explanation gives the other side plenty of room to maneuver and make semi-new answers. I like the idea of kritiks, although I do not always like particular kritiks. I do not like to vote for things that I find offensive. I also do not like long overviews. They seem to be in vogue right now – but they mess up the flow and allow for a lot of random late cross-applications. If I don’t get a specific cross-application on the flow in its proper place, I am likely not to register it as an answer or argument. Last, I tend to flow tags and what the evidence says more than a particular cite. If you say pull the “name” evidence, it will take me longer to find it. Be nice to each other and have fun. I do not like mean rounds.

--

JASPER, JOELLE

Name – Joelle Jasper

 

School – Washburn

 

# of years debated in HS-4

What School- Highland (Gilbert, AZ)

 

# of years debated in College_3

 

What College/University- Emporia State/Washburn

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach __X___College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _0___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester __x__Other (Explain)

 

I think that debaters should be able to control the direction of the debate. If you want this to be a policy round go ahead, if you want to go kritical then do that! I think that it is the job of the debaters to set up the framework of the round and how they want me as the judge to evaluate it. Above all have fun and MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS!

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Which ever you feel most comfortable with—I can handle any speed

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

They are great! Run what you like and what you know!

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Case is important – address it or tell me why it doesn’t matter

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

 

None

--

JENNINGS, ANDREW

Name___________Andrew Jennings________________

 

School____________BVN______________

 

# of years debated in HS___4____ What School___Silver Lake__________

 

# of years debated in College__4__ What College/University_______KU____________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __X___Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach __X___College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _0___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

___X__Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Present a plan to better our world.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

Test the aff.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Whatever wins the round.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

Do what makes you feel good.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

They’re fine.

 

--

JOHNSON, NATE

For Nate Johnson

 

 

Debate in high school 4 year at Manhattan High School, KS

Currently in the 4th year of debate at KU

Judge at the KU debate this summer

 

Paradigm: policy maker

 

Likes fast debate

 

Policy maker

 

Generics are fine

 

Loves case debate

--

JONES, CHRISTIAN

Name: Christian Jones

School: Jenks High School (Oklahoma)

 

# of years debated in HS: 5

What School: Union High School (Oklahoma)

 

# of years debated in College: 1

What College/University: Northeastern State University (Tahlequah, OK)

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach: N Asst. HS Coach: Y

College Coach:N College Debater:N

Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate: Y

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic: 0

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

__Y___Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

The Affirmative should present a case that provides at least one reason to vote for either the policy they are advocating or the resolution.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

The Negative should present a case that opposes the Affirmative case in some way.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Fast delivery does not bother me so long as it is clear. If I can not understand it, it will not be flowed. This tournament is the first time I have judged in a few years, but a debater can watch my body language to gauge if you have lost me or not. That said, there are very few speakers at any level that have been too fast for me to flow.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

I have no problem with any of these arguments per se, but all arguments must have a reason why it is in the round and an impact/implication stating why it should be voted on.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Case debates are good, but, again, all arguments must have a reason why it is in the round and an impact/implication stating why it should be voted on.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I am willing to vote on just about anything so long as it is reasoned and explained by the debaters in the round. As long as the competitors are weighing the impacts for me, I will be a happy judge.

--

JORDAN, BRYAN

 

School: Hutchinson and Emporia

 

# of years debated in HS: 4 What School: McPherson

 

# of years debated in College: 1 What College/University: The University of Kansas

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __x__Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic: ~30

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues __x__Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

The affirmative should prove themselves preferable to whatever the negative chooses to defend (a critique alternative, a counterplan, the status quo) or whatever they prove the negative should theoretically have to defend.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

I suppose its the inverse of the above.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

I prefer fast and technical debates and those are the ones that I feel the most qualified and comfortable to judge.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

Fine with them.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Well, if you're defending the status quo or a counterplan that doesn't solve all of the affirmative, case defense seems necessary.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

 

There's been a recent string of teams refusing to read impact cards. Some things are internal links, not impacts. I don't think you should change your strategy to suit me. Debate however you debate best and I'll judge it. If you have any questions, just ask.

--

KENNEDY, SEAN

***Name: Sean Kennedy

 

High school experience: Debated 4 years

 

College experience: Currently debate for University of Kansas

 

Paradigm- stock issues, games player, policy maker, tab, hypothesis

tester: Tab- I'll vote in whatever framework I'm put in- its always

best to make frameworks explicit, otherwise I'll try to sort out what

framework the debaters wanted/thought the debate was happening in

 

Speed prefs: I have no preferences with speed- go as fast or slow as

you like- but clarity is crucial- I will say clear if you are not

clear, but not being clear makes the debate not educational and

impairs the other teams ability to respond to what you are saying

 

Aff burdens: I think the affirmative should probably defend a topical

plan, although I can definitely be persuaded otherwise. I think that

1ac structure is crucial, especially if you are reading an aff that is

a departure from "policy debate"- it should be clear what the stance

of the 1ac is, and how the 1ac wants me to understand their argument-

what the actual arguments are I have few preferences on

 

neg burdens: I tend to side with the negative on most theory arguments

including conditionality, but I can always be persuaded otherwise- as

a result I don't think the negative has a ton of burdens other than

refuting the affirmative

 

generic DAs, CPs, Ks: I'm fine with whatever- I ran kritiks alot in

high school when I debated but I mostly read "straight-up" arguments

now if that helps

 

Case debates: I think case debates are important and are too

frequently overlooked- I enjoy case debates that are well done, and

I'm willing to vote just on the case as long as there is an offensive

reason to vote neg

--

LAWSON, PETER

I currently debate at Illinois State with John Bretthauer. We debated together at KCKCC. I debated at Leavenworth in HS for 4 years than at KCKCC for the better part of 3 years. I was a National Champion in Team Policy Debate for KCKCC at CC Nationals.

Run whatever you want. As Johns philosophy notes, I like to run procedurals and love theory debates. But you can do whatever and be safe. I like smart debaters and ingenuity. Don’t be afraid to take risks. My debate career has lived on the edge and I love it there.

--

MATHERLY, JACQUI

Name Jacqui Matherly

School Shawnee Mission West

# of years debated in HS 4 What School SM West

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University UMKC

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach Asst. HS Coach

College Coach College Debater

Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 0 (watched practice rounds)

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Policy Maker Stock Issues Tabula Rasa

Games Player Hypothesis Tester Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

The aff must present case that falls within the topic and be able to back it up.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The Negative should be able to respond intelligently to the claims that the aff makes

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I can deal with slow or fast but I am a stickler for clarity. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I Am ok with generic DA's as long as there is a clear internal link. I prefer not to hear theory but if it is presenterd properly I will judge on it.

How I feel about case debates?

I feel that clash is the most important thing thing in the round. I really don't like to hear topivcality or theory so case debate is very important

Other Comments/Suggestions:

--

MCINTOSH, JONATHAN

Affiliation: Greenwood Laboratory School (DOF)

CX Philosophy: I have actively coached debate for the past 8 years at both the college level (Drury University) and the high school level. I typically judge 50 + rounds per year. I also cut cards constantly, so I am familiar with much of the literature base. I view debate as a your world, not mine and not up to my personal biases.

My background is as follows: undergrad Comm./Political Science, and graduate Rhetorical Communication Studies/public policy analysis. I am comfortable with both critical argumentation styles, per formative styles and more policy oriented styled arguments. I am favorable to all styles of argumentation, and will vote as such.

General Paradigm: I view myself as tab. So make the arguments that you need to make, just justify them to me and articulate your positions. If no one tells me how to vote I default policymaker, but will vote in whatever framework you tell me too.

Specifically, In terms of Topicality:

Please be articulate in your topicality arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you. If you have a well-developed, logical, coherent Topicality worked out, run it- But don’t expect me to do the work for you in round if you are running a mess of a topicality position, and your only hope is a weak dropped standard, and you are wondering will he pull the trigger on T? Probably not. However if you impact the T out in round, I am with you. That being said I love good T debate. I would say that over all I have a moderate threshold for Topicality.

Theory: Ah yes, all I can say is if you want me to vote on theory be clear and precise of how it applies to the round. Do not make assumptive arguments and assume I will vote there. I like this nice and clean.

The K: I prefer specific Ks rather than general overarching K, its more of a speaks issue. That being said, I will vote on whatever arguments are made. I like Ks that are woven through the Aff advocacy demonstrating the need for the alt. Also, make sure you have articulated framework, I feel it is necessary.

Speed: I can keep up with most things, just be clear so I don’t have to yell clear.

--

MILLER, DOUG

Judging philosophy for Doug Miller:

 

I tend to be a policymaker, and am not a huge fan of the K, especially those of the "in round discourse" variety. CPs are just fine, as it T and most theory. Really don't like conditional arguments. Speed - once you lose vocal inflection, you are too fast for me. I can be placed in a different paradigm and will vote on most issues if you tell me why I should, but if you don't put me somewhere, the above is where I will go by default.

--

MILLER, KATHLEEN

Name_____Kathleen Miller______________________

 

School_____Shawnee Mission West_____________________

 

# of years debated in HS___0____ What School________Wichita Southeast_______________________

 

# of years debated in College__0__ What College/University____Kansas Wesleyan - undergraduate, Emporia State - Masters________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __x___Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

__x__Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _10-15___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

To affirm the resolution; to present a topical prima facie case

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

To negate the resolution; to provide clash; to have done their research, so they don’t need to totally rely on generic arguments

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

If I can’t understand you, I can’t vote on your arguments. That means I need you to go at a moderate speed, but more than that, enunciate clearly. I’m still silly enough to think that Debate is a speaking activity.

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I prefer on-case debate. Here again, if I can’t understand your arguments, I can’t vote on them.

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

I rarely get to hear them, which makes them a special treat! Truthfully, I think that’s the whole point of having a different resolution every year.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

No open cross ex, please. Topicality arguments used as merely a time suck annoy me. However, if the case is blatantly non-topical, run it!

--

MILLER, LYNN

Lynn A. Miller

Kapaun Mt. Carmel - Wichita, KS

4 years H.S. - Wichita Southeast

4 Years College - Emporia State University/Wichita

State University

 

Assistant Coach Kapaun High School

 

Judged 5 rounds on this topic

 

Policy Maker

 

Aff. Burdens - Establish a topical and solvent case

with some comparative advantage to status quo. Aff.

must defeat DA's or establish a comparative advantage

over any DAs or risk of DAs.

 

Neg. Burdens - Neg. can establish their own ground. I

am comfortable with Kritiks, Counterplans, or straight

Status Quo debate. If Neg. expects to win T, it

should be the only argument they go for in 2NR. DAs

v. Advantages. Some new in the 2 is ok, but I will

give 1AR much more leeway on responding. No new K or

CPlan in the 2NC please.

 

Delivery - As fast as you like!

 

Generics - See Neg. Burdens. Generics are fine if

they apply.

 

Case debate - Not needed, but I think some teams (both

aff. and neg.) are missing some good points that are

just dropped after 1AC.

MONTEE, AMANDA

Name: Amanda Montee

 

School: Kansas City Kansas Community College

 

# of years debated in HS: 4 What School: St Joseph

Central HS

 

# of years debated in College: 2 What

College/University: KCKCC

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic: 0

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Tabula Rasa

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

The aff needs to win that their case has some

advantage over the status quo.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The negative nees to win an offensive reason not to do

the plan.

Defensive arguments are not reason enough to vote

negative.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I am fine with any speed of delivery

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans,

Kritiks?

Generic arguments are ok as long as they link to the

affirmative.

 

How I feel about case debates?

Case defense is good with disadvantages or coupled

with other offensive arguments. Case offense is good.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I enjoy policy and critical arguments as long as they

are well explained and understood. Teams should run

the type of arguments that they are most comfortable

with. If you run a criticism against a policy aff I

think you need to include framework arguments to

explain how I should evaluate the round and the K.

Likewise, a policy team should be able to defend why

policy debate is better for debate or better in the

instance of their affirmative.

At the end of the round the aff and neg both need to

be comparing impacts and explaining why it is that

they should win.

--

MONTEE, ANDY

Name_andy montee__________________________

 

School__________KCKCC________________

 

# of years debated in HS___4___ What School_______St. Joseph Central____________________

 

# of years debated in College__2__ What College/University KCKCC_____________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach ___X__Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach __X___College Debater

 

__X__Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic _five___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues ___X__Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Affirm the resolution. What that means and how it is interpreted is debatable, but I think the aff must begin by being tied to the topic in some form.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

Prove what the aff says is a bad idea. It's pretty much that simple.

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Do whatever's comfortable. If it's between trying to go fast and making bad arguments and going slow and making good arguments, just go slow. I'm fine with you speeding if you'd like, though.

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Fine with me. Run whatever's in the tub.

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

The case debate doesn't get much love anymore. I enjoy it, though, and I think a lot of affs have weak spots here. You should answer advantages, too.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions: Just do your thing.

hasEML = false;

--

MONTEE, AUSTIN

Name – Austin Montee

 

School - KCKCC

 

# of years debated in HS-4

What School- St Joseph Central HS

 

# of years debated in College_ 1

What College/University_KCKCC

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach __X___College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _2___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester __x__Other (Explain)

 

I’ll go with anything, tell me how to vote and why.

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Tell me what they should by and why

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

same

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

As fast as you’d like I can flow it but please be clear

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

It’s all good in da hood

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Case is good

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

 

No worries do what you wanna do

--

OWENS, GARY

GARY OWENS / BLUE SPRINGS SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL (MISSOURI)

Number of years debated in high school: 4 (J.C. Harmon, Kansas City, Kansas)

Number of years debated in college: 3 (Kansas State University)

Present position: Head high school coach

Number of rounds judged on this year’s high school topic: 10

Paradigm: I try to be tabula rasa, but because it is effectively impossible to be truly tabula rasa, I regard myself as “open to persuasion.” I will listen to the arguments, and will try to judge the round based on the standards argued by the debaters. I dislike interventionist judges, and always try to avoid being one myself. That being said, my tendencies are as follows: (1) topicality is an independent voting issue (jurisdictional); (2) negatives are free to run conditional arguments – as such I buy hypothesis testing as a paradigm just as much as I would buy policy making; and (3) although I will listen patiently to kritiks/critiques/whatever, you should know that I have only rarely heard them run well and, as such, I view them with a degree of hostility. But hey, take your best shot.

Views on Affirmative burdens: 1AC should be prima facie, at least insofar as it delineates inherency, harms, solvency, and advantages. I do not believe that, under the language of this year’s resolution, a plan is necessarily required, given that the resolution does not require the enactment of a policy (for some bizarre reason). Affirmative also has the burden of proof to the extent that it must overcome negative presumption.

However, consistent with my “paradigm,” all of this is arguable in the round. Honest.

Views on Negative burdens: The negative should reject the resolution; consequently, I am of the old school belief that counterplans must be nontopical. If the negative intends to make an argument conditional, such as a counterplan, it should say so when the argument is run; otherwise, I will assume that, e.g., DAs would conflict with the counterplan, etc.

However, consistent with my “paradigm,” all of this is arguable in the round. Really.

Delivery speed: I flow, and speed is fine – just signpost sufficiently that you don’t lost me. I get cranky then.

Generic DAs, CPs, Kritiks: See above comments re: CPs and Ks. Re: generic DAs, they’re okay – just make a clear link to the affirmative. Hint: I tend to believe that the $9 trillion deficit makes most cost DAs look a little silly.

How do I feel about case debates? If I understood the question, I could tell you how I feel about case debates. I do appreciate case-specific arguments and analysis of evidence (cites, dates, warrants). 1NC, however, may of course run as many off-case as desired.

--

PAPON, ASHLEY-MICHELLE

KCKCC

I have been involved in the activity of debate around eight years. I competed all four years of high school at Blue Valley, so that should tell you that my background is straight-up policy. However, while in college at KCKCC I learned to love the K, as long as there is a reasonable link story and impact scenario. That being said, I'm not a philosopher. I tend to find a lot of Kritiks put out there (especially when the main author is some dead guy, like Nietzsche) rarely say what debaters claim they say, and debaters who parade around as though they know absolutely what Nietzsche meant when he wrote "Beyond Good and Evil" aren't just wrong; they're pretentious. Still, try to sell me your story anyway, but break it down for me, especially if we're talking about Nietzsche, Heidigger, or any other crazy deceased savant that I apparently should know to now function in the activity. Essentially, debate is about competing interpretations, so tell me why yours is better.

College-style, including speed, critical affirmatives and open cross-ex are fine. Like may fine college critics, I believe if you aren't speaking, you're prepping, so be aware of that. Also, don't be rude. You won't lose my ballot, but you'll lose my respect, which is infinitely worse and it will be reflected in your speaker points. Jokes are fine, but with the caveat of needing to be in the spirit of friendly competition. Jokes at the expense of your opponents are not acceptable. Jokes at my expense are GREAT and will definitely increase your speaker points--when in doubt of what to say, talk to Clay Crockett or Darren Elliott. Trust me, they have loads of material.

However, I have a grab-bag of arguments that I just won't vote on. In fact, if it's spun the right way by the opposing team, I may just drop you for running them:

*Genocide Good: hello, Native American Jew--obviously, genocide hasn't gained me a whole lot in life, except a bunch of dead relatives.

*Rape Good

*Racism Good

*Potential Abuse: it has to be legitimate, in-round abuse; don't spin me a sob story about "something happened somewhere somehow that might hurt me in someway." Not only does that mirror the National Terror Alert System at level orange, it functionally means NOTHING.

*Narratives: if you run narratives from anybody other than yourself, you better have some kind of evidence from them that it's okay to be using them in the context of a debate round. I think narratives are exploitative in that once a round is over, the person's story is completely forgotten and has been used only in an attempt to win a ballot. Listen, kids, there ARE more important things than winning a round--like having some integrity. And don't think that simply because you never contacted the author for permission that the other team won't do it. I won my break-round at JV Nats by breaking out correspondence from one of the maintainers of the website my opponents were using narratives from that expressly stated she did not want those stories used in the context of a debate round.

Finally, tell me how to vote and what the important issues are. In the last few seconds of your rebuttal, deliver me in the round in a neat little package as to why you should win.

Make sure to ask questions at the end of the round. If you don't understand my decision, want some pointers, whatever, I'll try my best to help you. I believe that debate is a learning activity and if something doesn't make sense to you, you won't learn anything, so please don't be afraid to tell me you don't understand. That being said, be respectful--if you don't agree, that's okay and you can express that, but if you are completely disrespectful or inappropriate with how you handle the decision, I will end the oral critique, which really only hurts you. I may be a crazy, out-there judge that you think dropped the ball, but you still didn't do enough work to pick up my ballot, which means you should really try to figure out why so it doesn't happen again.

--

PETTY, TAYLOR

Name___Taylor Petty________________________

 

School_______Washburn Rural High School___________________

 

# of years debated in HS___4____ What School__Washburn Rural High School______

 

# of years debated in College_0___ What College/University_____________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach ___X__ Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __4__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__X___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

The aff just needs to prove why their policy is more advantageous than sticking with the status quo.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

To prove that there is an alternative and better policy or that there will be significantly harmful impacts if the affirmative’s plan is enacted.

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Medium to fast- I say medium but for many this inherently means that they will patronize me and read at what they believe to be a “moderate” pace. I can handle flowing fast debate but if you are unclear or blazing fast, I will probably set my pen down.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Disads and counterplans are always listened to, no matter how generic, because we should be evaluating the best policy option. Kritiks are usually placed in some philosophical realm that removes the debaters from constructive dialogue about the best policy in favor of discursive subject matter that ultimately destroys what I believe to be the educational value of debate. Run your K if it has policy making implications.

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

I give case debate arguments as much weight as I do counterplans and disads.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I enjoy topicality but no one runs it anymore. Don’t be afraid to run it.

--

PIERSON, SCOTT

I debated four years in highschool two years were on the national circuit. I debated 13 tournaments in college at Missouri State all at the open level. I was also an assistant coach at SME last year and worked solely with national circuit teams. I have ran both the K and also Politics, so I would say I have no preference. I will vote on any well articulated argument as long as it is impacted to the importance it should be given in the round. In other words just because you run a K does not mean that I assume that should be looked at before a DA.

--

PRACHT, LARA

Name:___Lara Pracht________________________

 

School:__Garden City High School_____________

 

# of years debated in HS__4_____ What School:_Garden City High School_________________

 

# of years debated in College____ What College/University:_____________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

__X__Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _11___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__X___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Prove their case is better than the current system.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

To prove that the current system is better than the aff case. Alternatively, neg can run a CP and switch everything all around.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Anything is fine as long as I can understand you…so speak clearly.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Anything’s cool as long as you clearly explain the link. Feel free to run kritiks, just make sure to explain the basic argument to me…I’m not dumb, but I’m also not a philosophy major.

 

How I feel about case debates?

Umm…probably would be a good idea. Cool arguments like K’s, CP’s, and even DA’s are important, but it’d be nice to hear about case after 1AC.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

Basically, I’m okay with whatever. The only arguments I hate are specs (F-spec, I-spec, whatever-else-spec). I just ask that you make my job easier and do impact analysis at the end of the round so I know how the impacts each team has won compare (and thus who to vote for). I’m totally cool with T, just spend a little bit of time on it, both as aff and neg.

--

PRINCE, GLENN

Glenn Prince

Western Kentucky University

Topicality: I’m a lot more liberal in my ability to vote on this issue than most. I view topicality as a linguistic game debaters play and can be persuaded to vote on topicality absent in-round abuse. Clearly articulated standards are key in a topicality debate. Topicality, for me, is about competing interpretations—you win your interpretation and you’ll win T. One caveat here: I also think the distinction between standards and voters seems forced considering the standards debate generally frames why I would vote for you on T anyway.

Disadvantages: They have at least 4 parts: uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If one of those is missing in the 1NC, you are likely to lose this argument in front of me. I like well articulated internal links and impacts and comparison between those impacts and the affirmative case.

Counterplans: I’m very liberal on counterplan theory. The wackier, the better I’m even down with multiple counterplans. Have fun with these. It would help if they were competitive and had some net-benefit. I am amenable to theory debates on this issue because I think debates about debate and can be lively and educational. However, rarely will I vote against a team on a theory argument, just the counterplan itself.

Kritiks: You need a specific link to win this argument in front of me. Just the generic “they entrench capitalism” will not cut it in front of me. Articulated alternatives are also important for me when evaluating the criticism. Without one, it is often hard for me to know what I vote for when I vote for the kritik. Good arguments as to why the kritik can function without an alternative are welcome, but I find these arguments often lack clarity. You need to understand the authors/assumptions you advocate. I’m really tired of bad tagline pomo blah that goes nowhere and makes little to no sense.

Performance: If you an justify what you do, do it. I’ve yet to see many good debates that dared to called themselves performance.

Case: I find that the affirmative team often under-utilizes their case as a reason to vote for them. I think the negative can find itself in trouble if they fail to answer the substance of the case in the 1NC, absent a counterplan that solves for case. I think negative’s should treat the case advantages like they would disadvantages and answer them accordingly.

Extensions: The 2AC and 1AR must extend the case from the 1AC. I consider it a new argument for the 1AR/2AR to resurrect arguments that the 2AC/1AR does not on point extend.

In general, I will weigh humanistic impacts and determine who wins the debate. I am very tied to my flow unless you tell me some reason why I shouldn’t be. Speed is not an issue for me—I debated quickly and will not punish teams who decide to speak at a rate more rapid than normal conversation. However, if someone asks you to slow down, I expect you to heed that warning. Clarity is at issue with me and if you are not clear, I will warn you once and then I’ll stop flowing your arguments. Having said that, I’m amenable to arguments about the nature of debate, so if you feel you have a good speed bad strategy, I’m all ears.

If you’re negative, you must have offense to win the debate. Telling me the GOV doesn’t solve all the world’s ills is not enough for me. This need for offense is ameliorated with good defensive arguments.

The debate is about you and not me. Do whatever you want and I will do my best to evaluate what you give me in the most just way I know how…and have fun. If you aren’t having fun, what’s the point?

--

PROFFITT, ROB

Name: Rob Proffitt

 

School: Parkway Central High School

 

# of years debated in HS: 4 years at Granite City High (LD)

 

# of years debated in College: 4 at Western Illinois University (Policy)

 

Currently a Head HS Coach

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic: 4 rounds, all practice rounds, however.

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Policy Maker

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

The aff should present a defendable policy action.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The neg should simply prove that the post plan world is worse than either the status quo or a competative alternative world presented by the negative team.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

On a scale of one to ten (one being slowest), I should be able to handle a 7

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

It doesn't matter as long as they prove that their comparative world is going to be a better place than the Affirmatives

 

How I feel about case debates?

Case debate is pretty strategic and important. Just as the affirmative should read both defense and offense against any negative argument, it's probably strategic for the negative to read both defense and offense to the affirmative arugments. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for a team that doesn't have case frontlines.

Is it cool if we bring the check, or would you prefer we mail it?

--

RICKARD, JASON

Name_Jason Rickard

School___Wichita East_________

# of years debated in HS__3__ What School__Wichita East______

# of years debated in College__2_ What College/University Northwestern University

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach __X__College Debater

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _20_

Delivery Speed: Any, if you are fast go for it, if not I won’t mark you down for it.

In general:

The debate is up to you. I am open to voting for any argument as you long you can give intelligent reasons to why it is good for me to vote that way. Generally, I prefer a specific CP, an engaging case debate, or a Kritik with specifc links, but these are just my preferences, so take that, as you will. Additionally, please make sure you speak clearly, if not I will say “clear” a couple of times and after that I will quit trying to flow your arguments. Make choices in your last rebuttal, a few well-developed arguments are better than a multitude of shallow ones. These choices need to begin in the block or the 1AR and made clear in the final rebuttals. Distinctions are very important to me. Please compare evidence and contextualize the debate on all flows. I will and usually do read evidence but I prefer you make the comparisons so I don’t have to. Lastly, I love debate, have fun with it, relax and if you make me laugh, it definitely won’t hurt your speaks.

Arguments:

Topicality: I will vote on T, but it will be a lot easier if you have a specific violation. Make sure you impact these arguments with what significant ground you are losing or why you they are uniquely not predictable. In most instances T comes before theory though you probably can convince me otherwise. Lastly, I am not a big fan of specification arguments and I am easily persuaded that CX checks.

Theory: Having an interpretation for your theory argument is a good thing to have. Severance is bad. Intrinsicness is bad. But I generally think conditionality is a good and necessary tool for the negative, but I can be persuaded otherwise. PIC’s on a substantive issue are fine but while I will vote on word PIC’s it won’t be hard for the aff to convince me that PIC’s out of one word are abusive. Combining theoretical objections into a coherent interpretation is preferable. i.e. Multiple conditional cp’s bad or conditional PIC’s bad are both more compelling than just conditionality bad. You don’t need to slow down much for conditionality, but if I don’t catch your embedded cheap shot then it will be difficult to get me to vote for it. Please don’t just read blocks back and forth at each other engage your opponent on specific arguments. Lastly, either go for it or don’t, i.e. if you want me to vote on theory go for theory but don’t expect me to vote on theory if it is a small part of the last rebuttals.

DA’s and CP’s: I prefer a specific, well researched, CP and DA strat. However case and a DA is equally fine. I have no problem with a politics debate, but generic/non-sensical links if contested by the aff will significantly mitigate the risk of your impact. For CP’s the importance of your solvency evidence really depends on the quality of the affirmative evidence. If aff evidence is generic then your evidence can be just as generic, and if their evidence is specific to their agent/method then your evidence better be able to overcome that. DA’s that have both an external impact and a case turn are especially nice. Good analysis explaining your scenario is appreciated, and if your link story is detailed or confusing then it is even more important. Lastly, if your DA is absurd this will seriously affect the probability I give it in my evaluation.

Kritiks: I have no problem with the K nor do I have any particular affinity towards it. Specific kritiks are better than ones titled by the author who writes the evidence you are reading. At the very least you need to articulate a specific link story and a good link wall in the 2nc/1nr can help you do this. Aff, I find generic kritik bad debates to be very unpersuasive and annoying. Also, generic K answers like realism arguments are not nearly as compelling as engaging them in their argument and/or defending your advocacy. Kritik alternatives need to be competitive and, again, they are better if they are specific to the aff you are debating. Lastly, I find the majority of framework debates unnecessary the exception being the reps k. Most framework debates could be avoided with impact analysis. If the neg is reading Agamben and the impact is global civil war then your 1AC impacts will interact without either side winning a framework debate.

Framework: Like I said above, please don’t make framework arguments unless they are necessary. The aff needs a plan that grounds them in the resolution, you can do whatever else you want with the affirmative, but please read a plan text. If you don’t I will easily vote negative on T-You need a plan. I find that in a lot of debates both teams make framework arguments and their interpretations are functionally identical. Also, bad framework args/pre-empts in the 1ac are usually unnecessary and just scream that you are not ready for a K debate. Make the argument in the 2ac if it’s necessary. Good framework debates involve detailed impact analysis that develops the interaction between the 1ac and the kritik. Lastly, like T and theory, you need to have a good interpretation of your framework in order for it to be compelling.

Random:

Likes – humor, intelligent arguments, and strategic use of cx.

Dislikes – under highlighting your evidence (you will only get as much of an argument as your evidence warrants), blippy speeches, extending tag lines instead of warranted arguments, stealing prep, unnecessary aggression or rudeness.

--

RIMMEY, DUSTIN

Dustin Rimmey Judge Philosophy

 

Debating Experience

 

High School: 4 years, Lansing High School

College: 4 years, Emporia State University

Coaching Experience

 

High School: 2 years (currently at Topeka High School)

College: 1 year (Emporia State University

About Me:

If you don't know who I am, I debated for four years at Emporia State University. In those years I ran anything from: millions of bad theory arguments, space, spark/wipeout, Marxism, and the Illuminati. This means I am pretty much willing to listen to anything. I view debate as a game, and because of that, the first and foremost thing I have to say when you see me in the back of a room is to have fun, because if you are not having fun in this activity, then why bother? If you do not put me in a particular "judging paradigm" I default to a policy maker, but will vote however you tell me to.

Topicality:

I think that T is an important check in debates. I think you can use it strategically to establish tight links into your strategy or to hose them on a T debate. Contextual evidence is also a plus in these debates. If you can successfully deploy the "your aff would be topical if you just…." argument, you could be ahead on the T debate.

Crazy Hippie Affirmatives and T

 

Now, if you run a performance/nontraditional aff that is cool in front of me too. I think you should have some justification towards the topic though. If you are handy to kritik topicality you should explain these arguments. (A little more depth than, they read T and are evil would be nice). If you can explain why their interpretation excludes you from debate, and can give good impacts to your arguments you will be fine.

The other thing for these types of affirmatives, you should explain what the aff does or doesn't do so I don't have to go searching for meanings. I also believe that an explanation of the role of the ballot is necessary too to offer some direction in the debate for me.

Counterplans:

I have seen way too few CP debates on this topic...These are the debates where I feel the most comfortable, and have been the ones I have loved the most throughout the year.

I tend to err negative on CP theory, sans conditionality. I think it is evil, unless you prove otherwise. This doesn't mean don't run it, that just means you have to be absolutely housing someone on it for me to vote for you. I like the agent counterplans on this topic, however I think you should at least have solvency evidence for the case/harms area of the affirmative. I am also big fans of people who CP out of one advantage and then impact turn the hell out of the rest of the aff.

The K:

For me to vote for you, you need to: explain if the alt does/does not solve the aff. If the alt doesn't solve the aff, explain why the alt is better than the aff. You should also explain what the alt does, how it works. If you force me to read the K alt, and try to ascertain what the method is, you might be a little hosed. You should also explain the impact and how/where I weigh it. That aside, critical debates are fun and interesting, if this is your bag, then you will be fine.

I also think it is helpful for you to watch my Nonverbals in these debates, if I am not understanding your very nuanced explanation of Zizek or Agamben or whoever else, you will probably be able to tell, so please for my and your sakes dumb it down a little bit sometimes so I do not have to try to read cards to reconstruct the debate, this is fair to neither me nor you. So you could be waxing a team but if I can't look them and explain why the alt solves or what the K does, it makes it difficult for me to want to vote for you.

Conclusion:

If you run whatever you usually run in front of me, you should be ok, just explain your argument, and why you win, and I will probably vote for you. Jokes, haterisms, having fun and you will fare well in front of me.

Any questions, feel free to email me at dustinrimmey@gmail.com

--

RINEHART, JANE

Judging philosophy for Jane Rinehart.

School Kansas City Central

Number of years debated in high school 3 North Kansas City, Oak Park, MO

Number of yeard debated in college 2 years LSU

Currently head coach at Kansas City Central HS

Number of rounds on this topic 14

Paradigm policy maker

Aff burden--To indicate that there is a problem with a plan that provides reasonably solvency.

Neg burden--To indicate that the plan is flawed, that there may be disadvantages to the plan, that a counterplan would solve better, or the plan simply won't solve.

Delivery--I'm really tired of the speed stuff. One can slow it down a bit, be clear and still have lots of arguments on the flow.

Generic disads, counter plans, and kritiks--I'm willing to listen to anything, but I want to have lots of clash and warrants behind the arguments. Too often, the warrants are lacking, and, especially with a K debate, very little clash.

Case debates--can be pretty interesting if developed properly.

Other comments--I'm not that hard a judge to pick up. Explain why the debaters win, and what I should evaluate. Too many debaters don't do that, which winds up with some really odd decisions.

--

ROHAN, CHRIS

Name: Chris Rohan

 

School: KCKCC

 

# of years debated in HS _3_ What School __Lansing__

 

# of years debated in College_2_ What College/University__KCKCC__

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _X_College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _0_

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _X_Other: I don't feel comfortable labeling myself as any particular type of judge. When I judge a debate, I vote on what happens in the round, specifically with what the debaters tell me. I will not hold any predispositions I have against you. I will vote on arguments that I don't believe in.

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

I think the affirmative should at least in some way be tied to the resolution. I believe Affirmatives should have the ability to do whatever they like as long as they can win a good reason to not completely follow the resolution. However, I have no hesitations about voting on topicality.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The negative should give reasons to not do the affirmative. Counterplan's, a disad, criticism, whatever. Roll with whatever you feel comfortable with. Ultimately, the burdens for either side are debatable.

 

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Moderate por favor

 

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I like the K, but I'm down with whatever you want to run. I will vote for anything. Politics disads aren't my thing, but a winning argument is a winning argument.

 

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

8 minutes of solvency? Inherency?! Go for it.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

Overall, I think both sides need to explain why they win the debate and do some sort of impact calculus. A complete argument is a claim+warrant+impact. I prefer critical debates, but I will listen to any argument. Do what you think will win you the round, and you should be alright.

--

SELF, ADRIAN

Adrian Self

KCKCC

Rounds on topic--30+

 

Policy Issues:

A litany of complaints does not a plan make, or for that matter a counter-plan either. If you proffer some type of harm, prove some type of solvency. If your opponent proves some type of harm against you ‘at least’ offer some mitigation of their impacts. More toward ‘at best’ show you’re clearly superior to the position of your opponent. Both sides’ positions my end up ‘not good’ but it’s generally a good thing to clarify the lesser of the evils for me.

 

Evidence & Argumentation:

A diversity of complimentary sources curries my favor. An argument, block, or position that relies on a single source, and especially one of blatant bias or obscure origins, is relatively less weighty to my sensibilities.

Generic/non-unique positions are just as troubling for the affirmative as they are for the negative, so be relevant when developing your constructives.

 

One pigeonhole:

About economic and statistical evidence, analysis, and reasoning: Not to label anyone as narrow minded, but there too often seems to be an over reliance on the generic and static. Economics are dynamic, not static. Often when you think you’re just killing your opponent with a hot, sexy card, I’m sitting there thinking, ‘wow not only is that not the whole story that you’re trying to sell, but you don’t even seem to fathom that the rest of the story exists.’ So try not to be too shallow in believing you can sell me a voter based on economic analysis/interpretation of your own (even when your opponent is non-responsive) that is remiss in providing a more complete story. That said, don’t misinterpret me and think I don’t want Economics to be an issue grounded in the debate, it happens to be a close hobby and occasional passion of mine.

 

Time:

Your responsibility not mine. I carry no gauging instruments with me, so if it’s important to you, then you take care of timing. I’m left to rely on observations of the sun, weather, and animal habits to guess at time – which ain’t too precise when minutes are important to someone in the round.

 

Organization:

I’ll flow with a decent effort at following what you’re saying. I’m not a secretary, so if something is especially important to your calculus of why you think you win, then you should provide that structure to me to follow.

 

Drama:

Rhetorical, historical, or personal (in round) drama dismays me – humor is better. You should behave well toward your opponents, present an attitude of goodwill, otherwise I will be very suspicious of your purpose in debating and especially at seeking greater truth and understanding. A feeling that you’re not in the round to be educational, even for yourself will hinder your effort at a ballot.

 

Decision rulez:

At the top of the page I highlight that solutions are of greatest weight to me. But you can always decide that there are more important issues, ideas, and tactics.

Solvency = downhill battle, no solvency = uphill battle. Even if you’re not a militaristic planner, you should be able to discern with a little common sense which is more optimal for your cause.

There probably isn’t any argumentation that I will brand as absolutely illegitimate, just perhaps better suited for more appropriate forums. If one has to bump their speed so fast to spew through such a long, under developed position, with seeming esoteric relevance, I’m going to think you should be publishing well reasoned, peer reviewed journal articles as a better means at communication then what you’re trying to accomplish by using all our time in the round. If you sound inhuman, gaspy, raspy, wheezy, an octave above falsetto, or hyper ventilative, then I’m probably going to feel something is not quite right about you and/or your argument.

Superbowl players don’t show up to the football field prepared to play chess or canasta. That would be a waste of time, painful, and full of badwill. And disrespectful for your opponents, audience, and respective institutions you represent. Debaters should give me some relevant resonance to vote for you.

 

--

SHEPHARD, CURTIS

Speed: I don't care, if I can't understand you, be more clear.

 

CPS: Fine, I tend to default to Neg on Theory.

 

Ks: Also fine, but the more specific the link to the debate round the

better. For instance, I'll like a k of the aff plan more than a k of

the resolution, more than a k of debate.

 

I consider myself a games-player. Debate is a game, and whoever plays

it the best should win the round. If you want me to evaluate the round

in some other identifiable way, tell me what that way is and why I

should prefer it. That's part of the game also. I'm also a coach, so

show some respect to the activity. If it is clear that you don't want

to be there, then I will get very angry that I have to judge you.

--

SKOGLUND, ERIC

Judge Philosophy for ERIC SKOGLUND:

 

HS debater for two years, NDT/CEDA debate for one, lots of judging since then and currently assistant coaching in Northeast Kansas.

 

-Speed's fine as long as you're clear. You should go slower through any block where you believe I'm flowing every word you say.

 

-I have a fairly low threshold on topicality and assorted theory debates, but that should not be an excuse for you to pull out something ridiculous. Every theory position should come down to a debate about which interpretation is better for debate.

 

-I tend to view the round through a policymaking lens because that's what makes the most sense to me. If your kritiks function on the policy level, that's great. If they somehow function to transform the meaning of the ballot, you're going to need to give me a pretty good reason why that makes sense. A framework debate can be helpful here but you're probably fighting a tough battle if you really need to get me out of the policy realm to evaluate your impacts.

 

-Counterplans and disadvantages are fine in pretty much every form. I don't like the "A Strat" style of debate where the 1NC doesn't even seem to need to hear the 1AC, but I won't punish you for following the prevailing winds here.

 

-Be specific when comparing evidence - I will not read it after the round for you unless there is a substantial question of fact which cannot be addressed any other way.

 

If you have other questions I haven't addressed here, please feel free to ask me to clarify before the round.

--

STENGER, SEAN

***Sean Stenger

 

I prefer warranted arguments and depth to those warranted arguments,

not just cross applications from blocks or tag lines. At the end of

the debate when I make argument comparisons, several things come into

play. First and foremost, I prefer arguments made in the debate, but

I will and unfortunately have had to default to my own logic because

of the lack of analysis made in the last two speeches. These two

speeches are very important to me and I like a lot of impact

comparison. Secondly, I use a fairly strict offense/defense

comparison. I like to come into the debates with as clean a slate as

possible, and thus can be persuaded to a lot of arguments, especially

procedural issues. I personally think PICs are ok and conditionality

is alright, but that's not to say that I won't vote otherwise. I

don't have any assumptions about any argument in the case of

topicality, I weight it as heavily as any other argument and have a

pretty good threshold for pulling the trigger on it. I am most

experienced on the right side of the spectrum with politics, other

disads and counterplans. I do, however, enjoy good critical debates.

I understand the technical aspects of these debates, but as a

disclaimer, I'm making it clear that I'm not familiar with this

literature as most critical teams would like me to be. I've judged a

little over 10 debates on this topic. I am familiar with the topic

but not well-versed. I'm alright with speed as long as its clear and

finally, I like good, smart debate. I'm ok with the recent "projects"

and other performances, but I'm probably not your best critic.

--

STONE, CHRIS

Name Chris Stone

 

School Washburn Rural

# of years debated in HS 4 What School Derby High School

 

# of years debated in College 3 What College/University Wichita State/Kansas

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach ___X__Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach __X__College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic __<10__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

___X__Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

-What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

I think the affirmative should defend a topical plan that is an example of a literal interpretation of the resolution. After that, I’m open to about anything. Offensive arguments are important for the 2AC and beyond.

-What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The negative should win a reason why the affirmative is not a good idea. This probably means the negative gets a lot in terms of flexibility on theory arguments like conditionality, PICS, etc. I suppose it’s possible that you can win the debate without offense, but it’s a thousand times easier if you have some.

-How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I feel like you should debate at the speed you’re comfortable with. I will be able to keep up with you, so don’t worry about that, but there is really nothing worse than listening to someone try to talk fast and sound like they’re dying.

-How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Generic disads are fine. Counterplans are good. I will say I am less in favor of the consultation counterplan, but if its all you got, I suppose I can deal with it. Kritiks are fine. I am probably not the best with the literature, but I have an ok grasp on most of it. This means arguments might require more explanation and you shouldn’t expect me to fill in gaps

-How I feel about case debates?

Case debates are really good and probably the most underutilized argument in high school debate. You should remember that you need some offense though.

-Other Comments/Suggestions:

Topicality is a voting issue, I’m not sure I can overcome this predisposition. Good T debates are some of the best because they expose the skill of the debates without a reliance on evidence. Humor and good evidence get you better points. I think a substantial portion of debates are won on work done outside of the debate, such as cutting cards and preparing/thinking about your arguments.

--

STRICKLAND,

Strickland—Little Rock Central

philosophy is pretty open. I believe I am a tab judge. I want the students to do what they believe they need to do in order to win my ballot. I need things clearly explained to me and like a line by line debate. If the debaters use critiques, I must know how they relate to the case. Open cross examination is okay as long as the debater who should be asking the questions is primarily involved in the process. Speed is okay if I can understand it; if not, I will request that the debater slow down so I can comprehend what is going on during the debate.

--

SWANSON, LARRY

Name: Larry Swanson

School: Olathe North, KS

# of years debated in HS: 3 What School: Shawnee Mission North , KS

# of years debated in College: None What College/University

 

Currently a (check all that apply) _x___Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach____College Coach _____College Debater____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic: More than 10

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker __x___Stock Issues __x___Tabula Rasa

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

My default paradigm is stock issues but I won’t do the work for either team in the round. Therefore I end up voting for almost anything as long as the logic and evidence are good.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

I like clash. The link debate is most important and usually the least developed by negatives and they usually suffer for it on my ballot when they gloss over the links.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I am a fairly fast flow but not unlimited. If your strategy warrants speed use it otherwise why not appeal to me as a speaker?

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I have voted neg. on all of them but CP’s with Politics disads usually turn me off! The link conditions are the key here.

 

How I feel about case debates?

I absolutely love them!

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I bet I am more tab rasa than any judge who claims they are as I am willing to let the teams in the round set up decision rules…provided they actually do it.

--

TERRY, BARY

Name:Bary W. Terry

 

School: Belton HS/University of Missouri-Kansas City

 

# of years debated/speech in HS:0/4 What School:Stoutland High School

# of years debated in College:0 What College/University:

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

X Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic:None so far

 

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

_____Policy Maker ___x_Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

They have to defend all stock issues and present a prima facsia case in their 1AC. They must defend all arguments made against them to win the ballot and be kind and respectful to everyone present.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The negative has to win one stock issue, if they can do that then they win the round. I dont really care about new in the 2 arguments so dont worry about those if you run new in the 2.

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I would prefer a more slower delivery. It doesnt mean extreme 1 word per minute just conversational pace or a little more than that but not much will do. The reason is that while you may be able to read a million cards going 50 mph but one, I want to know if you understand what you are saying and I wont be able to know what you are going for if you go that fast so how am I going to vote for you?

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

I would prefer not to hear generic DA's but I will deal with it, thats my own opinion on them. I wont count you down for running them but I will probably rank you higher if you run a good "non-generic" DA and run it well. Counter plans are fine with me as long as they compete and are a better policy than the Aff. Plan. Kritik's are where I draw the line, I'm not here to be told we need to teach everything around Africa or that we need to take a step back from policy making or anything like that. In policy debate you are debate about a policy and to defend your plan (or attack if you are the negative).

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

This is really important, If you dont have anything that is against case then in my mind yu have no ground to win the debate. The case is what the resolution collapses around and if you dont talk about the issue at hand then you dont get my vote. There are always arguments that can be made on case so thats why it is important to debate those.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

 

I will listen to topicality only if it is properly structured, we are here to make friends and learn not get into yelling matches so keep your cool.

--

THOMAS, DREW

Judge Philosophy for DREW THOMAS:

 

I debated 4 years in High School...primarily in Champ. I have also coached some too.

 

I hold a B.A. in Poli Sci and International Studies from the University of Kansas

 

I have judged 100's+ rounds in my life both in Kansas and at National Circuit Tourneys

 

Overall, I like anything you want to run in the round. I do not necessarily pull the trigger on anyone argument faster than others...yes I know it might seem I am biased either for/against Politix...I assure you I am not. My role is the judge the round in question and not just vote on the arguments I prefer. I feel that the round should develop under its own unique circumstances and resolve itself likewise.

 

I am ok with any DA's, CP's, K's etc. that you want to run. My only requirement is that the last two speeches in the round should crystallize the round. You should explain why your argumentation accesses my ballot. So if you want me to be a policy maker...make me one and then explain why I should vote for you. Therefore, feel free to run whatever you want, but just make sure you can debate it...hence why we are here. I guess I could just say I'm Tabula Rosa, but I wanted to give it a bit more explanation.

 

Also speed is not an issue for me; however, clarity can be. You can go as fast as you like, but make sure you are clear!

 

In the end, just have fun. This is your round, I just happen to be the guy in the back judging it.

 

Drew Thomas

--

THOMAS, JEFFREY

Affiliation: Shawnee Mission South. I am a parent of a debater and I work to support the team.

Background: I debated for two years in High School. My partner and I took second place at state, won a number of invitationals, attended Nationals, the TOC and the Harvard Round Robin.

I debated all four years of college for Loyola Marymount University in California. I qualified for the NDT all four years of college, and received at-large bids (ranked 10th) in both my Junior and Senior Year. I think the high point of my college career was beating the Dartmouth A team to win the Harvard invitational.

After graduation from College, I attended law school at University of California, Berkeley. I practiced law for several years in California before becoming a law professor.

Paradigm: Although I would probably approach issues as a policy maker, I am also open to other approaches to debate. As a general matter, I believe that the burden is on the Affirmative to convince me to vote in favor of the resolution, and presumption lies with the negative. I believe that the plan should be topical, that advantages should not come from extra-topical provisions. I accept counter-plans, but generally believe that they should be competitive and should not support the resolution (i.e. not be topical). I also accept generic disadvantages, though I am not a big fan of the weak link but infinite impact disads. In my day, kritik’s were just starting through generic counterplans. I accept them as a legitimate form of argumentation, but would not characterize myself as predisposed towards them. I will base my decision on the arguments made and extended in the round. While drop arguments go to the team who extends them, the consequence of that depends on the strength of the argument and how that argument relates to the rest of the round. Designating an issue as a “voting issue” only makes it such if you convince me that is the case, or if it is a traditional voting argument (e.g. Disad that outweighs, etc.)

Speed: When I debated, now many years ago, we were pretty fast and we learned to debate when speed was a well-accepted strategy. However, my ears may not be as attuned to speed now as in the past. Also, while I tolerate speed, you must have good enunciation to go with it. One practice of mine that may affect your willingness to go fast is that I will not call for evidence for my review after the round is over unless there is an allegation of an ethical violation. Thus, you can go as fast as you’d like, but I will not make up for what I cannot hear by looking at your blocks after the round. I am comfortable flowing the round, but I need you to give me enough information and detail to make my flow meaningful.

--

TIDWELL, RUSS

Name Russ Tidwell

 

School: Garden City High School

# of years debated in HS__0_____ What School_______________________________

# of years debated in College__0__ What College/University_____________________

Currently a (check all that apply) ___14 years_Head HS Coach _____Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach _____College Debater

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _Including practice rounds 20+_

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__x___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Harm, Inherency, Solvency

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

Beat the affirmative case with intellectually consistent arguments

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

As long as a debater is clear, whatever

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

I think clear links are important, but am not opposed to generic positions with clear link analysis/evidence.

K's- I like a kritikal argument that actually applies to an affirmative. Because I'm primarliy a policy maker, it's important for a team running kritikal arguments to make the voting rationale clear to me from the outset of the position. I'm not fond of kritikal positions that won't be "nailed down" or "morph" after the initial argument and cx.

Performance Debate- You do this at your own peril. I believe it's destructive to the activity, and I've NEVER voted for a team that did it. IF both teams choose to play that game, I'll vote for someone, but nobody has a chance at a speaker award after my ballot goes in!

CP's- are fine- I want a clear net-benefit, and I will listen to theory arguments on them.

How I feel about case debates?

 

T is a voting issue for me, but the debate has to be clean. I'm not likely to listen to under-developed RVI's

I will vote on a solvency block if it's got turns in it and neg wins it. I will trade off mitigated solvency and DA risk.

I'm one of the few left who will vote negative if neg wins a clear inherency argument- if the plan is already in place, I don't need to endorse it.

Case debate is important...especially on this topic. I don't, so much, like Affirmative extending advantages in 2AR that haven't been extended before that...

Other Comments/Suggestions:

1. I believe in reciprocal burdens...if you hold your opponents to a standard on an argument or position, I think you need to hold to the same standard.

2.Tell me how you think the round should be evaluated in the rebuttals. I want what I think every judge wants- a clear reason to vote. If nobody gives clear decision calculus, and I have to sort it out on my own, nobody has a right to complain about the way I make the decision.

--

TIMMONS, JENNY

Name__Jenny Timmons_________________________

 

School________St. Thomas Aquinas__________________

 

# of years debated in HS_____3__ What

School_____St. THomas Aquinas__________________________

 

# of years debated in College___0_ What

College/University___na__________________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach ___X__Asst. HS

Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

___X_Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic __10__

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

___X__Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

To provide a topical policy option that is superior to the status quo

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

To either provide a better policy option than the aff, prove why the status quo is better than the aff, or prove the aff is a bad idea

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

fast is fine so long as the speech is enunciated and signposted well, I tend to not flow if I don't know where the argument is supposed to be flowed.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

I love generic cp's and disads, when the link is clearly stated - it doesn't have to be carded, it can just be case analysis. Generic Ks are fine, but I would rather (and more quickly vote) for a cp or a disad, especially if there is no alternative for the k it seems unrealistic to me

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

Case debates are great - and I will vote for them if they are weighed and shown to be important to the impacts of the round.

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

 

I like to be told how to vote

I like signposting

I like impact calculus

--

TRUESDELL, TYLER

Name: Tyler Truesdell

School: Lawrence Free State

# years debated in HS: 4

 

Currently a: debate fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS topic: 10

 

Paradigm: Tablula Rasa

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Unless otherwise specified, present an option that is advantagous to the status quo/negatives advocacy.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

Prove that the affirmative's advocacy is not advantagous to the status quo/chosen advocacy.

 

How I feel about delivery?

Go as fast as you are coherent. Don't force anything.

 

How I feel about generic disads, CPs, Kritiks?

As long as you understand the argument well, run it.

 

How I feel about case debates?

As a tab judge, if both teams want to debate case, go for it. I did 4A debate as well, so I am fine judging case.

 

Other comments/suggestions:

Please know and understand the arguments you run and don't feel like you have to run things out of your comfort zone to appeal to me or to the other team.

 

--

TUCK, GARRETT

Garrett Tuck

 

Experience- 4 years in HS.- Oak Park HS. Kansas City, MO

2 Years in College- Kansas City Kansas Community College

 

Speed not an issue, if it is I will tell you. Clarity is key.

 

I will default to a policy maker, and prefer this framework. But will give credence to other frameworks.

 

Offense wins my ballot. DA’s, Cp’s and solvency turns are the easiest way for me to evaluate a debate!

 

Discourse is VERY important. I have no problem pulling the trigger on a speech K of some sort. Watch what you say.

 

If you go for a procedural, you should probably just go for that. I need a lot of convincing. I will vote on potential abuse. I like ground comparison though. Or if you can show actual abuse. I will also vote on theory arg’s like Dispo Bad, Cond. Bad, all those sort of things. I will also give weight to cheap shots. RVI’s and aff must define all terms are all fair in my book.

 

K’s: I was not a K debater. I am not good at K debates. It can happen and has happened, that a team can convince me to vote for their K, but typically this is due to the aff making critical errors on the K. Don’t let this throw you off, if you are a straight K team go with what you know.

 

Performance: Go for it...but be topical. Good luck.

 

Anything else I left off just ask me about.

--

VOLEN, PHIL

Name Phillip Volen

School Shawnee Mission West

# of years debated in HS 4 What School Shawnee Mission Northwest

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University KU

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach Asst. HS Coach

College Coach College Debater

Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic ~20

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Policy Maker Stock Issues Tabula Rasa

Games Player Hypothesis Tester Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

To persuade me that the resolution should be affirmed.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

The negative must persauade me that the resolution should be rejected. In doing this, they should advocate something, whether that is the status quo or something else. I also hold the Negative responsible for clash.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

I believe all judges would prefer a slower round, but we'll put up with speed. I especially find hyperventalating to be annoying, but if I can hear the words then I'll flow it. If I can't hear the words, then I won't flow it. Also, I really am growing annoyed with no structure to arguments nor titles to offcase. Seriously, that takes like 20 seconds total and makes my flow and understanding much cleaner. And if you need to speed, then at least start a little slower so I can understand you. Starting out as fast as you go is a recipe to lose me fast and I spend the rest of your speech trying to play catchup.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

EXPLAIN THE LINK!!! I will ignore a generic DA or Kritik completely if I am persuaded that there is not a link. If the impacts say that I'm going to die prematurely by voting Aff or Neg, then the impacts are mute, it is the links that matter. I feel that PIC's are laziness and are just avoiding clash on case. I believe that PIC's may often be intellectual theft and a reason not only to lose the round but to be expelled from high school. The exception to this would be if the Negative can show that in some way that their PIC is a independent, thought out, different concept than the Aff plan. I LOVE real counterplans that are truly competitive with the Aff plan and AVOID solving for the Aff case. There are good kritiks and crappy ones. With 26 minutes of speech time, you will not change anyone's mindset (especially mine), so you have to hope I already agree with you.

How I feel about case debates?

I LOVE CASE DEBATE!!! You would think with multiple tubs of evidence, you might have some case side evidence against the Aff. Defense is not weak, it is strategic. I take case side arguments very seriously and will focus there if allowed.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I feel that open cross ex is at best a testment that you have zero faith in your partnership and at worst is a violation of the rules. I won't vote on it, but I will dock quality points to make sure neither of you get a speaker award and have problems when it comes to tie breakers. I also am getting really fed up with prep time theives. I have a timer on my laptop. It will always be going so you are either using prep time or speech time. Walking to the podium is prep time. Getting your flows in order is prep time. Roadmaps are a waste of time, but if you insist, then it is either prep time or speech time. I rarely if ever care about "abuse".

--

WHITE, KRISTEN

Name: Kristen White

High school experience: 2 years

College experience: 2 years (2001-2003)

Paradigm: Policymaker by default but open to paradigm set by debaters

Speed prefs: Fast but not blazing; I'll tell you if you're going too fast for me.

Aff burdens/neg burdens: Make a clear argument about why you should win the round based on the framework you support.

Generics: Fine

Case debates: Please!

--

WIKE, SCOTT

A SERIES OF HAIKU PARADIGMS

Scott Wike

Millard South High School

# of years debated in HS 4 What School Millard South

# of years debated in College 0 What College/University N/A

Currently a (check all that apply) Head HS Coach (4 years) Assistant Coach (3 years before that) & Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate (7 years with around 75 rounds a topic)

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 5-10

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

Tabula Rasa

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

Necessary Plan

Static defense of topic

Hate fiat? That’s fine

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

No preconceptions

Beyond disproving Aff plan

Tell me how to vote

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

Words like gusting wind

As long as the howl is clear

Avoid falling trees

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Nothing is taboo

Though understanding is key

For both me and you

How I feel about case debates?

A well researched case

Deserves at least lip service

If not a good dump

Other Comments/Suggestions:

Bottom line is that it is the job of the debaters to tell me how to vote, not my job to tell you what I won’t listen to. I am wary of narratives, but not necessarily opposed, it just depends on how they are advocated and utilized in the debate. I by no means have a preference as far as framework goes and am just as likely to vote on policy-making good, as I am anything else

--

WINGFIELD, SHAWN

Hi! I have been a head coach in South Central Kansas for the last twelve years, and have been affiliated with the activity of debate for over twenty years. Initially, I was taught the activity of debate from a stock issues paradigm, and will still occasionally default to voting from that paradigm if the on-case debate is strong enough. However, I find myself these days becoming more of a policymaker. In the last six years as the debate coach of Wichita Northwest, I have had the opportunity to judge debate at all levels of competition, including NCFL and NFL Nationals up to and including out rounds. To my preferences on arguments:

 

1) I have become increasingly wary of voting on topicality over the years, and have all but abandoned the thought of voting on topicality by effects. If the negative chooses to run it, they should have a fairly solid violation to present. On that note, however, if it becomes apparent by affirmative that case is topical, I won't hold it against the negative to punt the T debate. I never vote on RVI.

 

2) Please do not speed any faster than you can articulate. I have no problem with speed debate and can keep up, but only if the enunciation is fairly clear. If you are speeding for the purpose of speed and not enunciating, I'm not flowing it, and therefore, I'm not voting on it.

 

3) Kritiks should have an alternative presented, preferably after the impact. Call me old fashioned if you like, but a kritik without an impact sounds too much to me like a weak, albeit often critical, disadvantage. Make a kritik a kritik, please, or call it something else.

 

4) I'm warming up these days to debates on framework and timeframe, although I still appreciate it when, in this particular debate, there's a little more explanation as to WHY solvency is or is not mitigated. This one I would appreciate having explained to me.

 

5) On Counterplans: I'm OK with both topical and non-topical counterplans, although if you choose to go with the topical route, you will want to preface your presentation with a little bit of theory (just to say its on the flow). Competitiveness and mutual exclusivity must be CLEARLY demonstrated up front in the counterplan, and not hashed out in later speeches. Further, if there isn't a DA down on the affirmative plan, the odds of me picking up the counterplan go WAY down.

 

6) On disadvantages: I still prefer case-specific links, but with a topic this broad, I understand that they are sometimes a little hard to come by. If all else fails, EXPLAIN the link story to me.

 

7) Finally, on weighing the round: go back to your initial understanding of a policymaker when you crystallize. Think "Net Benefit" with most benefits and fewest detriments. Draw me a picture.

 

I think that's it. If you have any questions in round, just ask. I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.

 

Shawn Wingfield

--

WYATT, SARAH

Name Sarah Wyatt

School Blue Valley High School

# of years debated in HS 3 What School Blue Valley High School

# of years debated in College 1.5 What College/University Kansas State University

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __X___Asst. HS Coach (Sponsor)

____College Coach __X__College Debater

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS Debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _roughly 20___

Paradigm

I default policy maker if you do not put me into another paradigm. I do not believe in tab ras. Everyone has their prejudiced for every argument even if they claim to be tab ras. I can judge anything that you want, but make sure that you explain why it matters. To see my notions, see below. I DO go by the flow unless you tell me not to – and give good reasons – and don't suggest that i do it. Give me a solid reason and tell me that i need to. Suggestions on not flowing don't get that far with me.

Speed

I am fine with fast or slow debate, however, fast that both teams are down with (NOTE: BOTH TEAMS, not ONE). So please check how the other team feels. If you do not ask and go fast when the other team is not and they run a speed K and impact it out, you better be able to defend why you sped. If you speed, you best be clear. I will not hesitate to yell clear at you. Each speaker only gets notified once cause it is your job to be clear. If unclear after that, your speaks WILL get docked. If i don't have it down on the flow, i am not voting on it. Plain and simple.

Kritiks

Ks are not my favorite, but i will vote on them if handled and impacted well. You need to have SPECIFIC LINKS or else i don't know why it is unique. Link to specific case language or actions, not just generic links. Its all about the link debate if you run more than one off. If you are a one K team, spend time on the impact level and why it matters in whatever paradigm that you put me in (REMEMBER I DEFAULT POLICY MAKER. THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU DO NOT RUN A FRAMEWORK ARGUMENT, I WILL ONLY VIEW YOUR K AS A LINEAR DA, POSSIBLIY A CASE TURN, if you don't do this, you lead to me intervening as a judge and deciding on something that wasn't in the debate, which is bad). Oh, and please have an alt and EXPLAIN it. I cant vote on it if i don't know what it is. Again, if you don't (aff or neg) it comes down to me intervening and you may not like it and it makes me look like a bad judge. You nor i want this to happen. Please do the work if you want to run a K. The aff needs to deal with each level. The uniqueness, the link(s), and the impacts. Turns are good. Just don't double turn yourself.

Disadvantages

Generic DAs are fine if they have specific links. If you don't have anything else except a generic DA, i will accept analytic links as long as they make sense (analytics are specific links, so it works out). Also, your DA better be unique. Obviously non-unique DAs don't make me happy. If you are the aff, make sure that you are able to refute each level of the DA debate (Uniqueness, Link, and Impact). Make sure that you don't double turn yourself on the individual level debates. Each part is important to answer, but don't contradict yourself. Explicated impact turns are good for either side.

CounterPlans

CPs are good. Make sure they are competitive. Whether it be textually or implementation. Be able to defend your competitiveness. If you are not competitive – the perm solves back so you will have no offense. Make sure you have a net benefit – and i don't think kritiks serve as net benefits really. Cause CPs generally link to those as well. CPs are not alts to Ks. Be able to defend your actor. Aff needs to deal with all net benefits in addition to general theory against them and solvency attacks against the CP. Ask the status of the CP. If you don't – you don't get any theory ground on that area.

Topicality

PLEASE PLEASE – if you are gonna go for T and not have it be a timesuck, deal with all levels of it – the definition, the interpretation, the standards, the grounds, and most importantly – THE VOTERS. If you go for T in the 2NR and don't extend the voters – no chance you are winning it. I don't really like stupid T. im not gonna lie – i hate people running T if it is obviously topical. If its all you have, then run it. If you have an original T against something that most think is topical, that is fine. Aff needs to prove how their definition, interpretation, standards, ground, and voters are not legit. Deal with all levels of the debate.

Framework

A good framework debate is a clean framework debate. don't get things confused. If you don't understand – ask the other team what they mean. If you want to go to in-round implications, you better have a framework in your first constructive. I don't like framework to come out in the rebuttals. It makes it ugly and annoying. If you want discursive impacts – do it in the first constructive you have. Both sides need to have framework if one side does. Neg needs to explain why neg gets framework choice. Aff needs to explain why aff gets the framework choice. Pretty much just smart debating. Ks and Case operate on two different levels i think.

Theory

Oh theory. don't just throw blocks at each other. Make interaction between the other sides arguments. I think this gets forgotten a lot. Explain why you are better. If you are speeding – SLOW DOWN ON THEORY. Since a lot of theory is not carded and generally blips, there is more of a chance i will miss one which may lose you the round. Also, i don't like blippy theory arguments. If you are gonna go for theory, you better cover it and not just think one thing that they dropped is going to win you the round. I prefer the blocks to be detailed.

Case

Case debate is good. Even if you have an awesome set of off-case positions. Neg – please at least put some defense on the advantages and solvency. Aff – if the neg doesn't, explode the harms of case to outweigh anything they throw at you. I think that a good case debate is just as nice as a K debate, if not better. I think being able to debate case is an important skill in debate that is forgotten in the world of offense. If they cant solve or there are no harms or they don't have inherency, you can win a round. Think about it – if case doesn't solve, why would i vote for it? And aff if you solve everything because they don't talk about it – point it out. don't drop case and suddenly pick it back up. Extend it throughout the round, even it is on another flow aside from the case flow.

Kicking Case

I don't think you should kick case. Unless you really think you will win on theory or have said discourse comes first. And kicking the case should come in the 1ar so the neg has a chance to talk about it. I guess i might vote if you kick it in the 2ar, but im less likely to unless you've been saying the whole round that you are gonna kick it and the neg says nothing. And you better give me a block on why kicking in the 1ar or 2ar (especially the 2ar) is justified. Neg – claim abuse. Cause i do think its fairly abusive to kick case unless it has been indicated they will. Even if they indicate it, i still don't like it.

New in the 2

As long as everyone in the round is fine with it, it is okay with me. I think it does put the aff at a disadvantage a bit, but theres a debate to be had about that. So if you want to – go for it and impact it out. Why is this bad for debate. Where did you lose ground. Why is it good. Reason why i should vote on it (this is fairly important).

Other

I think debate is about what the debaters want to do. With that in mind, however, i do expect a few things. If these are violated, i will dock speaks. don't cuss in round. don't be mean. don't be disrespectful to either the other team, your partner, or me. No overly excessive jokes about people, whether or not in the round, get annoying especially if i don't know who they are. With all of that, good luck and have fun debating.

--

ZUCKERMAN, JARED

Name___________Jared Zuckerman________________

 

School____________BVN______________

 

# of years debated in HS___4____ What School___Shawnee Mission West__________

 

# of years debated in College__1__ What College/University_______KU____________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __X___Asst. HS Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic _5___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

___X__Policy Maker _____Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 

Present a plan to better our world.

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 

Test the aff.

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 

Fast is fine.

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 

They’re lovely.

 

How I feel about case debates?

 

You should probably not concede the 1ac.

 

SCHOOL____________ TEAM INITIALS____________

(If you are submitting one sheet for all teams, please write “ALL” in the Team Initials blank)

Below is a list of all judges entered at the tournament. Next to each judges name on the LEFT HAND SIDE, you must mark at least 24 judges as 1 (most preferred), you must mark at least 16 judges as 2 (preferred), you must mark at least 14 judges as 3 (somewhat preferred), you must mark at least 10 judges as 4 (ok), you may not mark more than 4 judges as 6 (not preferred). All remaining judges, approximately 7, may be marked as a 5 (least preferred). For the purpose of counting, all judges who cannot hear you (coached you, was on the same squad as you, debated with you, etc.) should be counted in the 5 category. Preference sheets that are returned with numbers that do not meet the above criteria will be corrected at the discretion of the tournament director. Please make sure you have the correct number in each category. It is ok to inflate the categories at the top end but not the bottom. For example you may have more 1’s than what you need, but the total number of 1’s and 2’s should match the above criteria. You could have 30 1’s and 10 2’s (bringing the total of 1’s and 2’s to 40)

A correct example of where to put the numbers would be:

1Abel, David—Goddard

1Burgett, Cindy—Washburn Rural

6Bricker, Brett—Shawnee Mission East

NOTE THE NUMBER IS TO THE LEFT OF THE LAST NAME. THIS WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO ENTER THE PREFERENCES.

Abel, David—Goddard

Bieth—Little Rock Central

Bonnet, Scott—Emporia

Brackmann, Martha—Lincoln Prep

Bretches, Michael—Washburn Rural

Bretthauer, John—Ill. St./KCKCC

Bricker, Brett—Shawnee Mission East

Burgett, Cindy—Washburn Rural

Case, Austin—KCKCC

Christensen, Dana—Millard South

Collier, Linda—Barstow

Crockett, Clay—KCKCC

DeLaughder, Ken—KCKCC

Dubin, TJ—KCKCC

DuBois, Steve—St. Thomas Aquinas

Elliott, Darren—KCKCC

Fugate, Noah—KCKCC

Garrett, David—Pueblo South

Gearhart, Zachary—Goddard

Gerrity, TJ—Shawnee Mission West

Greenwald, David—Shawnee Mission West

Grice, John—KSU/KCKCC

Groeblacher, Julia—St. Thomas Aquinas

Hamilton, Jake—Maize

Harris, Spencer—Greenwood Lab

Harrison, Jana—Edmond North

Hartney, Gregg—Jenks

Hibbs, Jason—Winfield

Hobbs, Jodee—Andover C./Andover

Jasper, Joelle—Washburn/KCKCC

Jennings, Andrew—Blue Valley North

Johnson, Nate—Manhattan

Jones, Christian—Jenks

Jordan, Bryan—Hutchinson

Kennedy, Sean—Shawnee Mission East

Lawson, Peter—Ill. St./KCKCC

Matherly, Jacqui—Shawnee Mission West

McIntosh, Jonathan—Greenwood Lab

Miller, Douglas—Pembroke Hill

Miller, Kathleen—Shawnee Mission West

Miller, Lynn—Kapaun Mt. Carmel

Montee, Amanda—KU/KCKCC

Montee, Andy—KCKCC

Montee, Austin—KCKCC

Owens, Gary—Blue Springs South

Papon, Ashley-Michelle—KCKCC

Petty, Taylor—Washburn Rural

Pierson, Scott—Shawnee Mission East

Pracht, Lara—Garden City

Prince, Glenn—W. Kentucky University/KCKCC

Proffitt, Rob—Parkway Central

Rickard, Jason—Wichita East

Rimmey, Dustin—Topeka High

Rinehart, Jane—KC Central

Rohan, Chris—KCKCC

Self, Adrian—KCKCC

Shephard, Curtis—Maize

Skoglund, Eric—Olathe NW

Stenger, Sean—Shawnee Mission West

Stone, Chris—Washburn Rural

Strickland—Little Rock Central

Swanson, Larry—Olathe North

Terry, Bary—Belton

Thomas, Drew—Olathe NW

Thomas, Jeffrey—Shawnee Mission South

Tidwell, Russ—Garden City

Timmons, Jenny—St. Thomas Aquinas

Truesdell, Tyler—Lawrence Free State

Tuck, Garrett—Pembroke Hill

Volen, Phil—Shawnee Mission West

White, Kristen—Shawnee Mission East

Wike, Scott—Millard South

Wingfield, Shawn—Wichita NW

Wyatt, Sarah—Blue Valley

Zuckerman, Jared—Blue Valley North

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GROEBLACHER, JULIA

St Thomas Aquinas

Name__Julia Groeblacher_________________

 

School____St Thomas Aquinas______________________

 

# of years debated in HS__4_____ What

School____McPherson High School___________________________

 

# of years debated in College__0__ What

College/University_________N/A____________

 

Currently a (check all that apply) ____Head HS Coach __X___Asst. HS

Coach

 

____College Coach _____College Debater

 

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

 

# of rounds on this year's HS Topic _12___

 

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

 

__X___Policy Maker _____Stock Issues __X___Tabula Rasa

 

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

 

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

To present a proposal upholding the resolution. How they choose to do

so (what theoretical framework etc) is their perrogative, but I find

topicality important.

 

 

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

To disprove the specific affirmative proposal's inherent worth (on

theoretical, policy, and/or philosophical grounds) or to provide a net

beneficial counterplan

 

 

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

No real preference.

 

 

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

Go for it, but provide a specific link to case.

 

 

How I feel about case debates?

Fine if accompanied by offense and impact calculus.

 

 

Other Comments/Suggestions:

If the round is "non-traditional," do not ignore the framework debate

or the discussion of ballot functionality. Also, impact calculus is

essential to winning my ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...