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

KCKCC Debate (NPDA/NFA LD) (20212024)

Assistant Coaching at Olathe North High School, KCKCC

I'm down for speech drop or email whichever works best for you. christopherlapeedebate@gmail.com

I was a 2 time quarter finalist at NPDA (2023, 2024) 3 time NFA qualifier.

I'm a first year out at the college level iykyk use that with prefs accordingly. a lot of this judging philosophy is based off my high school paradigm which I use to largley judge TOC policy debate so it might seem weird.

TLDR: I don't particularly care for certain arguments over others. Rather, I care more about debaters doing what they're good at and maximizing their talents. Granted to whereas I'm ok with you reading whatever, do keep in mind that the experience I've had with debate/arguments might not make me the best decision maker in the back of the room for that round. So if you get me in the back of the room read what you want but be mindful it might need a little explanation in the Rebuttals or else you'll end up with a wacky RFD you don't like.

Speed I'm cool with it (make sure ur opponent is too) if I can't keep up i'll say speed if you arent clear i'll say clear. This will allow me to keep up better. If you ignore my speed/clear signals I'm gonna be bound to miss stuff so if you get an rfd you don't like after the round thats prolly why.

More in depth version of how I evaluate

Top level:I default tech over truth

T: On T I'll default to competing Interps unless I get a good reason to favor reasonability or if reasonability goes conceded. I think T is a debate about models of a hypothetical community agreement to what the the topic should look like, in this I think the debate comes down to the internal links like who controls limits and ground and who's limits/ground is best for education and fairness. I don't think you need proven abuse but if there is you should go for that.

CP: I think CP's can be a good test of solvency mechanisms of the aff I wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit. I think the CP is a reason why 1% risk of the DA means I should probably vote neg if the CP solves, even if case outweighs. I don't think the CP alone is a reason to vote neg, just because there is another way to solve the aff doesn't mean I shouldn't give it a try. Internal net benefits are real and I'll vote on a CP with one.

Condo: I tend to think condo is good. That doesnt mean I wont vote on condo just that it might be a more uphill battle than with other judges. This is prolly bc the condo debate gets super messy and is late breaking af which means intervention happens and one team always winds up disliking the RFD.

DA's: I think a DA being non uq means no risk. I think no Link means the same, I think the I/L strat is commonly underrated if the link doesn't actually trigger the mpx then there is probably no risk, MPX turning a DA is underrated too. If you go for the DA in front of me focus on the story of the DA and form a coherent story by focusing on the internals if I understand how the plan actually causes the MPX I'm more likely to vote for the DA. Also you have to win that the Disad outweighs the aff. I default magnitude>timeframe>probability. Ill buy other orderings/framings but that work needs to be done in the debate.

Spec: If you go for spec go for it just like you would T. I'll listen to 6 mins of spec and vote on it. Same thing as T I view it as a models debate and you should focus on the internals because that tends to show who actually controls the mpx debate.

The K: On the link level first. I think the links to the k page operate in the same way as links to the Disad. What I mean by this is that the more specific the better. Just vaguely describing "the apocalyptic rhetoric of the 1ac" seems like a very generic link which is prolly not that hard for a turn and or no link argument.

On the impact debate. I think you need to be weighing the impact of the kritik in the round I find that a lot of debaters get jumbled up in line by line and forget to actually weigh the impact. Just extending it and saying "they cause xyz" isn't good because it isn't developed and lacks the warranting of why that matters and why I should vote neg because they cause that.

On the alt debate. It's a common stereotype of K debaters that we can't explain the alt. What does the alt look like? Why is that good? And so on so forth. I think that while I hate this stereotype I dislike even more that in the rounds I've watched debaters have tended to just read their tag line of the alt solvency and the alt whenever asked in cx what does the alt look like, and or do that to extend the alt in later speeches. This is not a good way to debate and doesn't help you convince anyone your alt is good, you should be able to articulate the method of your alt whatever that may be and how that changes the debate space or the world. I don't think this means you need to be able to tell me exactly what goes on at every waking point of the day.

K aff:

On the case debate I think k affs should link to the topic/debate in some way shape or form otherwise they feel very generic. specificity >>>>>>>> generics (on every arg tho). There should be a clear impact/impacts to the aff. I think where the aff falls short is in the method/advocacy debate I think that I should be able to understand the method and how it is able to resolve the impact in some way shape or form. I think the rob/roj should be clearly identified (the earlier in the round the better). That way I understand how I should evaluate the rest of the debate and process through things (I think in close debates both teams wind up winning different parts of the flow, I need to understand why your flow comes first). I think that performance K affs lose the performance aspect which sucks, I think that applying the performance throughout the rest of the debate is >>>>>> rather than losing it after the 1ac.

V FW I tend to think debate is a game that shapes subjectivity Ie y'all wanna win rounds and fairness is good, and also the arguments we make/debate shapes who we become as advocates. I will technically sway based off args made in the round (ie debate doesn't shape subjectivity/debate isn't a game) I think from the neg I need a clear interp with a brightline for what affs are and are not topical extended throughout the debate. I need a clear violation extended throughout the debate. I think standards act as internal links to the impacts of fairness and education. I think you should be able to win that your fairness is better than the affs fairness and that it outweighs their education. for the aff I also think you need a clear interp for what affs are and are not allowed under your model of debate extended throughout the debate. If you go for a we meet I think that the we meet should be clear and makes sense and also be throughout the debate. I think the aff should win that the TVA doesn't resolve your offense/education, that your fairness is just as good or better than the neg's model of fairness. And that your education outweighs. I think top level impact turns to t/fw are good. And use the rob/roj against the T debate (remember it all comes down to filtering what arguments are most important and come first)

KvK uhhhhhhh I tend to get a little lost in these debates sometimes tbh bc I think its tough to evaluate and weigh two methods against each other especially if they aren't necessarily competitive with each other. I think in these debate the fw debate including the rob/roj is most important, and judge instruction is likely how you'd pick me up if I'm in the back of the room. If you don't tell me how to evaluate arguments and what they mean in context to the round we'll all prolly wind up frustrated at the end of the round bc I'll intervene or make a bad choice. (I'm not perfect and make mistakes so judge instruction is crucial to make sure I don't make them)

---

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

---

Taylor Corlee - SBU

n/a

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - Simpson

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Tyler Cole - TxState

n/a

---

Will Wheeler - Mule Judges

n/a

---