Adam Enz - IC

n/a

---

Andre Swai - UNL

n/a

---

Andrew Eick - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Ashton RIos - TxState

n/a

---

Beau Burnett - UCMO

n/a

---

Ben Davis - Truman

n/a

---

Chanin Paxton - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Christine Rogers - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Christopher Lapee - KCKCC

Hello I'm Christopher!

I debated for KCKCC in college I did primarily LD, and Parli. I was a two time quarterfinalist at NPDA. As a Phi Rho Pi competitor I won 2 golds in LD and was top speaker my last year, a gold in Parli, and a gold in IPDA. As well, I recieved silver in Parli and IPDA. I've also since coached at KCKCC here and there. Primarily I coach high school policy at Blue Valley Southwest in Kansas. My background is in policy so the ways I view debate are filtered through that lens.

TLDR:

• Do what you do best bc that produces the best debates.

• I'll do my best to evaluate the round as objectively as possible and give quality feedback.

• Collapsing strat in round > going for the buffet.

• Disclosure good.

• Impact calc and warrant analysis/extension are the most important for my ballot.

I think these things below likely wont be problems at this tournament however I still feel I should mention them incase youre thinking about going for one.

I'm not voting on:

any version of wipeout

topicality is a microaggression

being topical gives people heart attacks

ld tricks

Top level stuff

Speed is good. I can keep up.

If a counterplan results in the plan, the affirmative does not need to win a complex competition debate to prove it is not competitive. The less germane the process counterplan is to the topic, the more lenient I am for the affirmative.

Plan text in a vacuum is meaningless.

"Tech over truth" has resulted in shallow debating where people just shotgun small arguments and then act like they mean something when they're inevitably dropped. I think I do evaluate the debate technically, but I believe you must present complete arguments for me to vote for you.

Prolly bad for
K affs v T usfg/fw (both teams flying through T usfg/fw debates = Im missing a lot on the flow and my feedback usually isnt great on how to get better at going for certain arguments)

K debates (particularly if youre going to go for fw in front of me. Similar problems to the above. Lightning fast theory debates make me lost and my feedback isnt great for getting better at these debates)

T debates (slow down and stop focusing on being hyper technical. Make the interp make sense and give me reasons why your fairness/education outweighs)

Best for policy aff v disad/counterplan debates

more in depth stuff.

T:

• Default to competing Interps.

• T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what should or shouldn't be topical.

• Win that your interp's limits and ground is best for education and fairness.

• Potential abuse is good enough to vote on.

Counterplans:

• CP's are a good test of the aff.

• Wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit.

• The CP is a reason why a 1% risk of the net ben means I vote neg.

• I think there is a lot of process slop on this topic. If the counterplan results in the plan I dont think it is very difficult for the aff to win the competition debate in front of me as it is right now.

• You have to give me a warrant why the counterplan solves in order for me to vote on it they dropped it so you assume 100% solvency is an incomplete argument and gives me 0 reason to believe it solves the aff

• I default to conditionality being good. Although I likely think theres a line where it becomes bad. I'll still vote for theory.

Disadvantages:

• Disads were my bread and butter. I think that impact weighing and timeframe analysis are the most important things to win.
• I evaluate it through a standard offense/defense paradigm.

Theory:

I evaluate theory the same as T

The K:

I think that the K is fine. I lean toward the permutation often or some risk of aff offense outweighing. I think this usually is due to underdevelopment of the negatives arguments more often than not.

Parli

if you get a policy topic then all the stuff above applies.

In value debates you must have a value and criterion (I think this winds up shaping what impacts are most important in the debate.)

Fact topics provide some sort of weighing mechanism for me to determine what is more true than false.

I think I still evaluate both fact debate and value debates technically like I do policy debates.

IPDA

I don't have anything to really say here. I still think its a debate event and thus I'll vote for whoevers arguments are the best and most convincing. I don't think delivery factors in. Make some good arguments and clash with your opponents.

---

Douglas Roberts - MoVal

On Tabroom

---

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Emily Unruh - WU

n/a

---

Gary Heisserer - MoVal

n/a

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Hayden Etter - UCMO

n/a

---

Jackson Specker - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Jaggard Williams - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Jenna Gorton - WU

n/a

---

Jessie Paxton - UCMO

n/a

---

Jillian Humke - Truman

n/a

---

Joe Moore - UCMO

n/a

---

John Carney - Truman

---

John Sims - UNL

n/a

---

John Wallis - Webster

n/a

---

Julia Giacomet Thomazoni - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Justin Kirk - UNL

Justin Kirk

Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris

General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.

One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.

---

Kaila Todd - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman

---

Kevin Krouse - Simpson

n/a

---

Lexi Winterbower - UCMO

n/a

---

Logan Michael - WU

n/a

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Maguire Radosevic - Truman

n/a

---

Malika Bradley-Ferdinand - UCMO

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - Simpson

n/a

---

Raine Stugart - UNL

n/a

---

Scott Koslow - Truman

n/a

---

Scott Thomson - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Shannon Johnson - UCMO

n/a

---

Shawna Merrill - IC

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.

I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.

I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.

Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.

---

Shelby Cumpton - UCMO

Love good speaking, strong argumentation, and a little humor here and there. Don't run preponderance of evidence in front of me; I care about actual argumentation, not just evidence. If you want to win my ballot, don't get caught up in the technicalities or terminology; just make a better argument.

---

Steve Doubledee - WU

---

TSU-Tyler Cole - TxState

n/a

---

Taylor Corlee - SBU

n/a

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - Simpson

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Will Wheeler - Mule Judges

n/a

---