Ellis,+Tim

Tim Ellis Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS Debated at Manhattan High School Updated 2/26/17

First thing is first, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

This is my 8th year as a coach, and 4th year as the co-head coach, at Washburn Rural High school. I judge quite a bit, probably 50+ rounds a year, and am generally pretty familiar with the topic from coaching. The short version of my paradigm is that I did primarily policy offense/defense debate and a coach teams who debate similarly, but I am open to you debating however you would like to. Some positions might be more of an uphill battle than others, but as an educator, I am generally open to listening to you debate in whatever fashion you're the most comfortable. That being said, if you are curious how I feel about particular realms of debate:

Topicality: I feel like topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I think that topicality debates should have offense and defense, just like any other flow. I have found that I am usually convinced that limits are the most important standard for evaluating a T flow, but I can be persuaded otherwise. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull, and it will take a decent abuse story or a crush of a spec debate for me to vote against someone for not specifying agent, funding, etc.

Framework: I find that framework debates to me are usually an issue of fairness. I find myself generally not super persuaded by the value of topic education vs the value of whatever educational outlet the affirmative has chosen to discuss is. The aff usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. Fairness is a bit more contestable from the negative perspective, in my opinion. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a very good judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. Theory: I think this is a debate just like anything else. If you can persuade me using warranted analysis why something should or shouldn't be theoretically allowed in debate, I am likely to vote for you. It is important to use your interpretation of a theoretical argument to generate offense. Don't just read your blocks.

Kritiks: I am not as familiar with the literature base for this style of argumentation. That doesn't mean I don't vote on the K, it simply means that you need a little more explanation for your argument than you otherwise might. Of course, if you are incapable of explaining your argument, you probably shouldn't win it in the first place. Another important debate to me on criticisms (for both teams) is what comes first, this is usually more persuasive if it is in the context of the criticism, not just ontology in general. To win on the K, it is important that you explain what the world of the alternative looks like. Explain how the criticism interacts with the other arguments, and why I should prefer it. Root cause arguments usually help make these points.

Disads/Counterplans/Case: These are the types of debate I am most familiar with. I think disads are good, and you should probably read them. I think case arguments are helpful, and you should probably attack the other teams case. Particularly, I like creative counterplans and PICS. I am not a huge fan of word PICS, international actors, or multi-actor counterplans.

Things I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means (tell a story on your DA/Advantage). Debaters who are funny/having fun. Warranted arguments/smart analytics. Well thought out strategies.

Things I dislike: Must define all terms, running arguments you don't really understand, death good, topicality = genocide, general rudeness, stealing prep time, and clipping cards. If you enjoy doing these things, you probably don't want me to judge you.

Disclaimer: I love the activity of debate, and think that it is a place where all types of debate styles/debaters should be welcome. If you are excessively rude to the other team (laughing during speeches, being disrespectful in cross-x, etc) I will let you know. If the behavior continues, there is a strong chance that I will vote against you on principle.