I am a single diamond coach who has been coaching both officially and unofficially for the last 9 years. I was competitive in speach and debate in high school and attended 4 CFL National Tournaments and 1 NSDA National Tournament. I placed third in Expository at the 1996 NSDA National tournament, and I was a semifinalist in prose that same year. I am currently the assistant coach for Fort Scott High School in Fort Scott Kansas. Home of the Kansas 4A division state debate co-champion teams this year. I have been judging LD and other debate events for the last 15 years, and have judged about 10 rounds of LD this year.

In high school I was competitive in Original Oration and Lincoln Douglas Debate as well as Policy Debate and interp events. I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and a Master's Degree in Addiction Counseling. I am currently employed, outside of coaching, as a clinical addictions counselor for a county mental health center.

My paradigm for judging is as follows:

Speed: I find rapid delivery acceptable provided that enunciation, diction and pronunciation is clear and able to understand. Rule of thumb, if I am not flowing, it is a good indication that you should slow down. Rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision unless I could not understand you throughout the round. I will vote against you if you do not respect my speed preferences.

Criterion: It may be a factor depending on it's use in the round. I do feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case

Voting issues should be ongoing throughout the round

Conduct in Round: I expect courtesy between competitors and mutual respect for each other's ideas and arguments, I have zero tolerance for rudeness or blatant refusal to share evidence or make relevant information available to both your competitor and myself as a judge.

I consider myself a Tabula Rasa judge and am willing to vote for anything that is supported, relevant, and applicable to the round at hand. I do not like generic arguments that do not seem to apply to anything specific.

I do not appreciate acronyms that are not defined in a round, keep in mind that coaching is my side job at this time and I may not be up to date on the latest acronyms that are being used for a certain topic. Regular debate jargon is acceptable however.

Final rebuttals should be giving me a line by line analysis as well as voting issues, and voting issues are absolutely necessary

My basis for decision is weighted between speaking ability, argumentation and validity of arguments

I do not need you to shake my hand before the round and especially not after the round, I also do not need you to call roll before each speech, meaning asking every single person in the room if they are "ready" the only person that needs to be ready is me, so if I am ready, go ahead and start.

I may ask to see things that were read in the round at the conclusion of the competition so please do not "pack up" during the final speech, so that my viewing of articles can be expedited.

If you have any further questions about my judging style, please ask before the beginning of the round for clarification.

I use she/her pronouns.

I debated in college. I have worked with high school policy debate for five years.

I believe debate is a forum for advocacy. I believe it should be accessible to all audiences. I am not lay, but I prefer styles that cater to lay audiences (big pictures, clear impacts, clear explanations, clear voters, etc.)

-Both teams must share speech docs: forgetting to share will result in docked speaker points, refusal will result in an auto-win to your opponent

-I don't flow or vote on new arguments in rebuttals--responsive evidence to support previously made arguments are okay though. If you intend to split the block, you need to articulate that.

-Ad hominem attacks, offensive rhetoric, and any other forms of abuse/violence will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I will dock speaker points. I reserve the right to end a round early due to excessive inappropriate behavior. No one should ever be personally attacked, bullied, or made to feel like they as a person don't matter. Be professional and respectful. Leave it in the ring.

-I'm fine with moderate-fast speeds. Once you have to go way up in your head voice to spread, you're gonna lose me. Enunciation is key no matter the speed. The clearer you are, the faster you can go for me.

-I could not care less about planks. I view plank complaints and arguments as a time-suck rather than proper clash. Debates that focus on the substantive content of the topic are going to automatically get higher speaker points from me than those that don't.

-Roadmap and signpost. Don't leave me searching my flow to figure out what you are talking about. I like titles, tags, and clear delineation between points.

*Framework is a priori.

I will vote how teams tell me to vote, regardless of my real-life opinions. Give me weighing mechanisms. Give me voters. Give me standards.

If you tell me to weigh the round using impact calculus, I need to know how to weigh impacts (magnitude, timeline, probability, etc.).

All conceded frameworks will stand. All competitive frameworks need to be justified.

*Persuasion is key.

I do not flow jargon. "Extend BlahBlahBlah" should be followed with a brief summary/explanation.

"They dropped BlahBlah" should be followed with an explanation of why that is important and why that is beneficial to you.

I like analytics. I love analytics backed up with a card.

*Counterplans

Sure! If you can solve better, do it. I'm cool with viable perms, too. Win the links and impacts, win the CP/Perm.

*Topicality

Not my favorite, but if there is a strong argument for loss of ground/education, then sure! But you have to make the argument; I won't make it for you. I need clear standards and voters. Answer the "so what?"

If an AFF team reasonably convinces me that either they meet a NEG definition or their counter-interpretation is preferable, I will give it to the AFF. There are few instances where I will award the NEG a T win on predictability/ground if I have seen the AFF before. Making ground claims and then running specific DAs or using specific link scenarios moots your grounds argument for me.

*Kritiks

Sure! Clear alt. Clear world of the aff vs. alt impact calc. Clear links. Clear explanations. Don't assume I am familiar with the literature (remember I prefer lay styles), but don't get caught misconstruing the literature (keep in mind I am experienced).

*Advantages/Disadvantages

I'm not going to vote for time-sucks. Walk me through the links and impacts. Weigh the impacts. If you don't have the time to explain it, you probably shouldn't be running it.

I flow. If you tell me that the other team dropped something and I clearly have it on my flow, you will not win any of your extensions.

JUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.

Any debater may look at this sheet prior to beginning each debate round.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Mark Bergmann

City Fort Scott State KS

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes No

Number of years 0

2) Did you debate in college? Yes No

Number of years 0

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 2

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: National Qualifiers

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

B II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

C III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

B IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

B V. Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

B VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I have taught communication for 20 years and coached and competed in debate and forensics for 20 years. I want to hear solid arguments and value good communication skills and solid logic above all. I don't care a lot for Topicality, but am willing to vote on anything that is argued validly throughout the round.

Debate experience: 3 years in high school

Judging experience: a handful of tournaments over the last 3 years

What I like to see from the negative: a balance between on and off case arguments (not all one or the other), topicality attacks should be applicable and developed (no red herrings),

What I like to see from the affirmative: The affirmative must demonstrate to me by the end of the round that their harms, inherency, and solvency are still intact (losing one almost always ends in a negative ballot), as well as showing me that impact calculus is in favor of the affirmative.

For both: I like to see all cross examination time being utilized, applicable arguments (clash), and I especially look for a team to tell me how to vote

I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 12 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

As a judge I focus on communicative skills more than the resolution issues.

Skill emphasis is what I judge the most on.

As far as your speed, as long as you can be understood and are fluent speed isn't an issue.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable.

Topicality is rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I prefer specific real world arguments.

I have more than 8 years of experience. I am a tabula rasa judge. Whatever you run I will listen to. However, I do expect it to be clear and I expect you to tell me where to vote. If not, then you will get whatever decision happens on the flow.

I am okay with Kritiks, Counterplans, and other off case argumentation. I do not hate T and I will listen to analyticals within reason- however, if you expect to do something big with them you will need to provide evidence.

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. The extra commentary is here to help you do better so read it if you'd so choose.

Pronouns:

She/Her/They/Theirs

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: The disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say that).

2. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

3. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. The competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument, doesn’t really matter to me. I truly believe that debate is a battle of the minds, you are learning real life advocacy skills. So whatever you run I will listen to despite my personal feelings about individual argumentation preferences.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas in SE Kansas- High School, 2 years Parliamentary Debate and Lincoln Douglas Debate at Hutchinson Community College. 2 years Parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 6 years of Judging experience in both college and high school levels, all styles of Debate.

Email:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency.There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

1) Did you debate in high school?

Yes, for 4 years. I competed at state 2 speaker, 4 speaker and nationals.

2) Did you debate in college?

No.

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

None.

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

2

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year:

Bishop Miege Invitational

6) Judging criteria:

Clash is very important. I expect to see direct argument on substantive issues. I appreaciate good communication and persuasion. I consider thoughtful, logical arguments even if unsupported by direct cards.

Paradigm:

I will judge tabula rasa if you direct me to. But, because I now work as a litigator, I will default to a policy maker judging style. I appreciate good stock issue arguments.

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

I haven't debated in a long time, I can keep up fairly well, but appreaciate organization so I can keep track of your arguments. Speed for speed's sake is not appreciated.

Counterplans are:

Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is:

Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. And I mean the link needs to actually make sense. I really really prefer

I find kritiks:

Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

JUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.

Any debater may look at this sheet prior to beginning each debate round.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Kate Garman

City State

1) Did you debate in high school? YES

Number of years 4

2) Did you debate in college? NO

Number of years

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 2

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year:

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates? B

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate? C

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer? B

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

IV. Counterplans are: C

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

B V. Topicality is: B

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

A Disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

C VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Michele Gerber Silver Lake KS

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes. Number of years 2

2) Did you debate in college? No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? 0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 3

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: Silver Lake Invitational

Judging Criteria:

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I was a high school debater for 4 years, and competed in 4-speak regional and state tournaments both my junior and senior years. I judged three rounds of the Bishop Miege open tournament this year, and have tried to judge once a year since I graduated (which was, admittedly, 10+ years ago).

Though I didn't debate in college, I have a Masters in Theatre and worked for a number of years in the professional theatre community. I say that in preface to: I am appreciative of clear communicative skills, as long as they are in service to the resolution of substantive issues. Both hold weight for me.

I was a stocks-centric debater, and am now a stock issues judge.

Fairly rapid delivery is acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated. Very rapid speed is discouraged, as I will be flowing your round.

Counterplans are rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates. If you're the Negative, I would rather you focus on dismantling the Affirmative rather than turning it into an affirmative vs. affirmative round.

As Topicality is a stocks issue, it's fairly important. Winning Topicality doesn't necessarily win you the round though, as I will take all stock issues into consideration.

Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. My squad ran disads in the 2NC often, so I will consider them if brought up in this speech.

Kritiks are reprehensible. Ground your arguments in the real world.

Please add me to the email chain for all speeches/ev, and email with any questions: hilary.griggs@yale.edu

For KSHSAA state- PLEASE do not go over time. I have had to interrupt debaters in every round I have judged about going over time in CX and in speeches and it is frustrating :)

Background:

I debated policy all through high school in KS and now coach parli to high schoolers in a UDL.

Speed:

I’m comfortable with whatever, as long as you signpost and are clear with tag lines, plans, and other particularly important bits (CP texts, theory, perms, etc.). I think that effective debate can happen at any speed, but don’t push it.

General:

I spent a lot of time in high school being annoyed by my judges. I don’t want to be one of those judges, and so I keep my paradigm short. I think that, at its core, debate is about persuasion and cleverness, and I am open to anything from both teams. More than anything, I value clarity, good argumentation, and impact turns.

Other fun facts (for my policy debaters):

T:

I will vote on T. I agree with most standard T rules like: run interpretation, violation, standards, voters; T is not a reverse voting issue, it is a priori, etc. But, again, I need aff/neg to make these args in-round.

DA’s:

Please, for the love of god, run your DA’s right. UQ, link, internal link, impact. I genuinely do not care if your DA is the most generic thing alive; if you have a good link card, I’m in. Argue that.

CP’s:

I love counterplans. I think they are a great way to be creative in a round and really push the aff, but they do need to meet the minimum requirements of mutual exclusivity, net benefit, etc. I think debating against a CP can be fun for the aff, too… perm do both.

K’s:

If you run a K or a K aff in the Kansas open circuit, you already get points for bravery. I’ve read my fair share of theory, and I think that k debates can be really interesting and productive. That said, if you run a K, I expect you to know your lit and to argue it effectively. I am not inherently impressed by K args, so it’s entirely up to you whether or not running a K is effective. That being said, framework is incredibly important in this case. A generic policy aff will beat the world’s most beautiful Cap K if they win on framework.

I've been coaching Policy Debate for many years now but did not compete in high school as it was not offered. I did not debate in college.

My judging criteria include:

Communication skills are equally as important as the resolution of substantive issues. As a judge and community member, your brilliance does little good if you can't communicate it effectively. Part of the educational value of Debate is the public speaking component. Find that sweet spot of speed, volume, clarity, and engagement while being informative and resourceful.

I would say my paradigm or approach is a combination of Stock Issues and Tabula Rasa.

Counterplans are seldom used where my school debates but I do believe they have their place. I'm pretty big on providing clash with the Aff having the burden to prove that anything at all needs changed in the SQ according to their plan.

If you run T, run it well, and don't use it as a spare tire just because you have no effective, clashing evidence.

There will always be generic DA's but they probably won't tip the ballot scale.

Introduction

I'm an undergrad at Kansas State University studying psychology. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school - growing up in Kansas, most of my experience was at smaller local tourneys but I also competed at a decent number of bigger tournaments and was successful at the state level each year (including a 2-speaker championship my senior year). I've been judging ever since I graduated, and I love it! I'm comfortable judging any style you want to throw at me (however, the fact that I'm not debating in college should give you some insight into what style of debate I find most palatable).

General judging philosophy

I want you to tell me what to vote on. I strive to go into each round tabula rasa to avoid bias (which I believe is very important for judges with experience). If I don't get anything from you, I usually default to policy maker. I definitely have opinions of my own (as you'll see in this paradigm), but I only judge based on what is presented in-round and try to keep my own opinions and beliefs out until I need to.

Speed/presentation

Spread like crazy only if you can do it and only if you're doing it for a reason. I'm not against spreading, but it's up to you to do it well. Be careful, though - if I can't understand you, you're defeating the purpose of spreading.

Even if you do spread, you should still follow basic guidelines of presentation. Clear tags, variation in tone, and especially clear citations (I expect to be able to understand the card's author's last name and year of publication at the very least). These things go double for the 1AC and 1NC! 1ACs should be well-rehearsed and 1N speakers should have their go-to DAs, Ks, or T-shells polished up pretty well. I also expect well-presented weighing and conclusions in the 2AR and 2NR.

Relying on jargon is generally lame. I understand debate jargon, but I would prefer that you use real words. Saying things like "condo" when you mean "conditionality" is just as goofy as saying "poggers" out loud. I won't dock you speaks for using jargon, just consider this a tip.

Case

I won't lie, case debate is the most entertaining part of this activity for me. It's valid to run an aff without advantages, but to do so is to leave tons of aff ground on the table. I really dislike massive, sweeping advantage or disadvantage impacts. A minor education plan will not solve racism, and a small prison reform will not cause nuclear war. I guess what I'm saying is that your impacts have to make sense, otherwise your credibility breaks down.

Here's a few specific case-related paradigms:

- If there is not some kind of impact-based argument, then your other arguments will most likely fall flat. Keep in mind that critical arguments can still have impacts.

- You absolutely need to win a DA to win a CP.

- Elements of the neg do not need to be consistent with each other (i.e. a DA with a big impact does not automatically invalidate T on substantially)

- I am OK with both linear and unique advantages and DAs, and I appreciate clarification for which type you are running.

- I won't stop you from running any type of CP, though I will warn you that PICs, consult CPs, and funding/enforcement CPs aren't very persuasive to me.

- I love good impact calculus. Weighing the round for me is the best way to make sure I vote on what you want me to vote on.

Topicality

I don't think I've ever voted purely on T, but in some cases I've really wanted to. The problem with T is that people often don't know how to run it. I am extremely familiar with the workings of a topicality argument. If you don't understand the mechanics then chances are low that you'll win on it.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding T:

- I prefer very specific definitions. I can't tell you how bored that Webster definition of "substantially" makes me.

- Your violation is the centerpiece of your topicality shell. If your violation reduces to a circular argument like "they're not substantial because they aren't substantial" then you're not going to get me to vote on it.

- Aff reverse voters hardly ever work. I am totally cool with you running non-voters and reverse voters (i.e. "you shouldn't vote neg on T, but their T strategy provides reasons to vote aff), but only running reverse voters is a bad idea.

Kritik

Once upon a time, I was a freshman in high school running a case about reducing surveillance of FDA workers to end the suppression of whistleblowers within the organization. Neg team ran race K, fem K, and bataille K. Does that sound ridiculous? it was.

I will be completely blunt with you - most kritiks are lame. It pains me to say that, because I like Ks a lot. I think I was the first person in the history of my high school to run a K, much less win a round on one. The problem with most kritiks is that people tend to vomit them up as time-sinks without even trying to prove their link. This is a blatant attempt to trick the judge into voting for you because you use big kid words. This does not work on me - in fact, it's the fastest possible way to turn me against you.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding Ks:

- Just like T, structure is incredibly important.

- K of debate is inherently hypocritical as you're trying to win a debate round with it.

- K of case is the safest bet with me as it is the easiest to link.

- You will not be able to convince me that performative debate doesn't deck education. I don't want to see it. However, I will hear a legit K of P if the link makes sense (this is what I did in HS so I have a soft spot for it).

- Just because I focus on links doesn't mean your alt doesn't have to be pretty close to perfect for me to vote on it alone.

- Critical affs can be interesting. Again, I am in no way opposed to the concept of critical debate!

Theory

Again, I have hardly ever voted specifically on theory. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear theory. I used to run it all the time. If there is abuse in the round, I won't vote on it unless the abused team knows to check it on the flow - this is frequently done with theory arguments. I prefer debate to be more down-to-earth, so theory arguments that are way out there are off-putting to me.

Miscellaneous

- Both teams should divide duties equally. The speaker order is the way it is for a reason. Debate is a team activity for a reason. I find that I almost always vote against teams that don't divide responsibility well. I won't vote on your team dynamic (hey, I don't know y'all) but it's in your best interests to work as a team. This especially goes for neg teams - I expect both constructives to be packed full of new arguments. If the 1NC leaves the 2NC with nothing to cover, then the 2NC is a waste of 8 minutes.

- Fill your time. This is mostly a problem for new debaters, but I see minutes of speech time left on the table in open rounds too. I touched on this a bit in the previous point, but debate is healthiest when both teams are filling up their speeches.

- I flow, but I'm not really a flow judge. If a team drops something, I'll notice, but I won't vote on the drop unless the other team calls it out and analyzes why the drop necessitates victory.

- I have a very strong nose for generic attacks. If your aff case/DA/K/anything else is straight out of this year' Northwestern debate camp or Baylor Briefs or whatever, I'll know. Generic attacks can serve you well if you back them up with original thought and great link analysis, but they can also be used very lazily in place of original attacks.

- I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks. Do not try to make your opponent seem like a bad person. Do not try to make your opponent seem stupid. Debate is an artificial space created to explore ideas - sometimes, people are forced to argue things they do not necessarily believe. I will give you bad speaks if you mistreat your opponents.

- Be clever, but always argue in good faith.

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

Background

4 years HS Debate (2002-2006); 0 years collegiate debate.

Prior Judging on current topic: 2 prelim. rounds.

Paradigm
(as per KS State Paradigm Sheet):

I: Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?
(c) Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II: Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?
(b) Stock issues emphasis + (c) Policy maker emphasis

III: What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?
(c) Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

IV: Counterplans are:
(c) Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

V: Topicality is:
(b) Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

VI: I find generic disadvantages:
(b) Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:
(a) Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Summary + Other Preferences

-While I can easily be convinced to vote on stocks, if no framework is established I will default to a policy maker who also cares about T. Particularly when a round is muddled or otherwise difficult to flow and no explicit case is made for a given argument being a 'voter', I find myself weighing advantages vs. DAs is a convenient shorthand to arrive at a reasonable decision. If you'd like me to vote based on other criteria, please say so, and explain why.

-I like to flow (on paper). Please help me flow by signposting your arguments. It will not hurt my feelings if you continually remind me where on case/plan a given argument lives.

Hopefully this last one goes without saying, but I mention it anyway: Above all, please be courteous to the other team (and your own partner too!). While the topics/issues are real, our time together is something of a fiction, and nothing happening here could possibly justify being rude to your fellow debaters during an educational exercise. It's supposed to be fun!

Stock Issues and Policy Maker

1) Did you debate in high school? ☐ Yes ⌧ No

2) Did you debate in college? ☐ Yes ⌧ No

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic? N/A

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? N/A

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: N/A

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

V. Topicality is:

Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Caleb F. Kampsen

Debated in high school for four years at Silver Lake Jr./Sr. High School. I ran kritiks, counterplans, generic disadvantages, and topicality along with other negative arguments like topicality. I did speed debate and did slower debate, so I am comfortable with any speed, however I have not judged very often since I left debate, so my tolerance for speed might not be as high as it used to be.

You can make whatever arguments you like, but the most important thing is you telling me how to vote and why. Do impact calculus and tell me what issues are voting issues and why. You probably don't want me having to make my own judgments on why something is a voting issue or not, and like my general tabula rasa paradigm, I will adopt what standards you tell me to.

Did not debate in college.

I have judged a handful of preliminary rounds on this topic.

Priorities in Judging Debate: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa (Judge Adopts Perspective According to Standards in the Round) and stock issues.

Speed or Rate of Presentation: No preference regarding speed.

Counterplans are: Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

Topicality is: Fairly important: roughly on par with other major issues in the round. Essentially, if you tell me that topicality is an important issue/voting issue I will treat it as such, but like with all other issues in the debate, you need to tell me how to evaluate it and why it's a voting issue. And yes, I will vote on topicality if it's warranted.

Generic Disadvantages: Generally acceptable.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

I debated in high school, sponsored my high school team in college. I've judged two rounds on this topic specifically, but have judged quite a bit over the last 15 years.

My go to is a policy maker paradigm unless there is a stock issue that just seems blatantly overlooked or under-covered. As a policy maker, please don't tell me that an impact to a disadvantage is going to be nuclear war unless you have really good links and brinks - especially with this year's topic.

I'm good with counterplans and Topicality is only going to sway me if it seems extremely untopical and you show that. Kritiks are not my favorite, but I'll entertain them. I'm usually okay with speed, but with things online, I'd prefer you to speak at a normal pace - just think speaking too fast can add to issues of being online.

I am old school and flow. Road maps are great.

Good luck!

I debated at Silver Lake High for 4 years and 4 years at K-State. I attended the NDT a few times, and made it to deep elims at CEDA a couple times. I assistant coached at the HS and college level for a few years after that.

But I've been out of coaching for about 5 or 6 years now, so don't assume that I really know what the popular arguments and authors are. Getting older has also made my flowing worse, so I’ll tell you to clear if I can’t hear you.

I think I’m tab.

By that I mean that I don't have a particular presumption about certain arguments. Everything's a debate so i'll try to eliminate any bias.

I don’t think there is any “right” way to debate. The right way to debate in front me at least is just to do what makes you comfortable. But above all you need to tell me what to vote for. This can come in any form, impact calc, role of the ballot, whatever. It just needs to happen somewhere to make my decision easier. If you fail to do this I'm probably going to end up making a confusing decision that doesn't make anyone happy, least of all me.

tech > truth, but good spin > bad evidence.

I also tend to protect the 2nr a lot in terms of new arguments, so 1ars should try to be explicit about stuff. With that said, I won't be nearly as sympathetic to a 2nr who goes for an argument and fails to adequately close the door to cross-applications.

If you clip cards you get the loss and 0 speaks.

Ks are fine. I feel like I read a wide enough variety of K stuff when debated that I'm more likely than not to have at least some idea what you're talking about. But like I mentioned at the top, I'm pretty old and K stuff changes a lot, so if your K thing has a lot of neat tricks or nuances, highlight them for me at some point. Like everything else for me just explain why and on what basis I should vote for you, and you’ll be fine. I'm also more likely to vote for you if you make the K interact with the case (root cause, specific link spin, etc.).

Reading K stuff on the aff is fine also. The aff should be at least be somewhat related to the resolution, but the extent to which that is the case is up for debate.

Regarding T, I find myself voting for competing interps a lot, but I can be persuaded either way. Specific abuse makes me want to vote for you, not even just in-round abuse, but, at the very least, specific arguments you lose.

Framework is fine too, just be clear about impact claims like I said before. T version of the aff is encouraged.

Other theory stuff is likewise, just be specific about the impact.

Law student at Washburn University. Did not debate in high school or college. First year judging. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. Fairly rapid delivery is acceptable for me, so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Counterplans are acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach. Topicality is very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Common Questions About My Judging Criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

At its core, debate is a communications event. What I look for in a round is the ability of all speakers to 1) identify the key issues in the round, 2) develop them throughout the round rationally and understanding/ respecting the nuance and real-world implications, and 3) expressing those issues appropriately and effectively.

B. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

There must be a balance here. Good public speaking skills are a must—good public speaking form is critical to success. At the end of the round, though, if the team that is least polished offers the most substantive arguments on the round’s issues, that team will win the round. This is true even when their opponents have a better understanding of theory, structure of arguments, and the like.

II. Which best describes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

B. Stock issues emphasis

Road maps will be on-time, please, unless there is a specific rule requiring they be off-time. Off-time road maps will be limited to sequence--I do not flow them and will not consider an argument offered here. Word economy, please--if you will follow the prior speaker's order, simply say "Same order."

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

E. No preferences regarding speed

I can flow what you can enunciate. If you stop enunciating, I stop flowing. I do not yell "Clear" or give other signals that you are not enunciating.

IV. Counterplans are:

C. Acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach

Counterplans, if run, should be plan exclusive. I’m looking for functional competitiveness in a cp. When neg offers a cp, they necessarily indict the status quo and therefore forfeit presumption, IMO. I don’t accept that cps can be conditional, as this presents a “moving target” to aff. (“Ban the plan” is not functionally competitive, and only weakly textually competitive, BTW.)

V. Topicality is:

B. Fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

What can I say? I’m a stock issues judge. T is a priori, so if neg is going to run it they really ought to run it at the top of 1NC. The end-of-round test for T, to me, is reasonability: if the plan is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, I’m going to allow it. I’m not all that interested in how neg structures a T arg, or how aff responds to it—has aff convinced me that their interpretation of the resolution is reasonable? If so, they’re topical and I consider the rest of the round.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

The links make the DA relevant to the plan. If the plan doesn’t incur the DA there’s not much point, now, is there?

VII. I find kritiks:

B. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Other things I like and you will do if you want my ballot:

· Direct Clash: I really like on-case args, BTW. I like DAs and Solvency attacks a lot, too, but clash is key to a good round.

· Signposting: When clashing with your opponents, tell me which arg you’re answering. (Road mapping is not a substitute for signposting, BTW.) I know where I would put your arg on my flow, but I need to know where YOU want me to put it.

· Extension in rebuttals: There’s more to a good rebuttal than repeating what was said in constructives. When you repeat constructives, you’re having a “is not/is so” argument. This is neither clash nor a debate. Extending args involves further developing your position and supporting it with extension evidence. Read new evidence that supports your position.

· Closed cross-examination: I strongly dislike open cross-ex. Also, please ask for cards from the speaker during cross-ex, not between speeches. On the topic of cards, please do not hover near the speaker and take cards as they read them.

Former high school and college debater--so I'm very well-versed in the structure and format of a typical policy debate round. I'm also an attorney, so I'm no stranger to seeing/learning/understanding both sides to an argument.

My ground rules:

1. I will not tolerate any arguments that I perceive to be discriminatory/prejudicial. In other words, if you run any argument that is obviously racist, sexist/misogynist, ableist, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-semitic, anti-Islam, etc., you will lose. I also won't tolerate blatant time-wasting or other disruptive behavior.

2. I flow. I will be keeping track of your arguments. I do not like dropped arguments. I expect you to flow through to the end. If you don't, you'll likely lose. If you're disorganized and jumping all over the place, I'll likely drop you.

3. I usually prefer straight policy, but I have been known to lean a little "tabula rasa" and I love a little theory now and then. I am familiar with CPs, Ks, narratives, etc. I don't mind them being run, but a couple things if 1NC decides to run one: (a) know how to do it, (b) understand what you're arguing and be able to explain it well, (c) be creative, but don't make it so wild and out there that there are no real world implications, and (d) bonus points if you can substantively tie it to the issues of the 1AC case. I will say I've never seen a high school team successfully run a neg theory argument...so be warned.

4. Re: speed--if you're a little fast, that's fine. I haven't done champs debate in well over 10 years, so I would prefer a more moderate pace. If I think it's an issue, I'll tell you to slow down.

5. If you're going to run policy-adjacent neg args like Ts or more general D/As, I'm fine with that, too. Since these kinds of arguments should be more direct defensive arguments, I prefer that you solidly tie it back to the 1AC as opposed to making it a filler argument that 2AC has to answer in an effort to strategically bury the aff in several arguments it could potentially drop (i.e., while I understand and appreciate tricks debate, I don't always prefer to see it at the high school level). Trust me, I notice the difference. So if you run a T, I prefer that there actually be a strong ambiguity issue (as an attorney, I'm a sucker for a good statutory interpretation argument). If you run a D/A, be specific about how the aff case will lead to the impact.

6. Almost forgot about standards: I just want you to give me some kind of standard to weigh the round, show me why it's the appropriate standard, and show me why you win it.

7. Re: organization--roadmaps and signposts strongly preferred.

8. It all boils down to this: I'm looking for y'all to be engaged, to think well on your feet, and to have substantive responses. Most of all, just have fun and be respectful.

I was a 4-year state debater and now I am an assistant debate coach. As a policy maker judge I look at the Aff case as if it was a plan in congress. I weigh it on if it will accomplish more good than bad. I prefer realistic impacts for both advantages and disadvantages. While topicality is important, I rarely vote on it. However if the neg makes a good enough case for it, then I will vote on it. I do not care for Kriticks. Counterplans are fine.

Three years of high school policy debate experience and five years of judging experience. Preferences for: a clean, organized debate. Focus on the issues and good debate strategy. I prefer to judge based on stock issues, but only will default to stock issues if the debate is organized enough. Be careful running T.

Policy Debate experience

• Policy debater for 4 years at Silver Lake High School (2014-18)

• KSHSAA 4-Speaker State Champion (2018)

• Jayhawk Debate Institute alumnus (2017, 2018)

I have not judged any debates on this year's resolution.

1. Please be respectful to your opponents and your partner (do not talk over answers during cross-ex unless they're clearly just rambling). Ad hominem attacks will hurt your speaker points.

2. Communication skills and argumentation are of roughly equal importance. I think this activity should be preparing participants for both the researching and presenting that they will have to do in their future careers; you can't just be strong in one aspect and then neglect the other.

3. Tabula rasa is the most accurate way to describe my paradigm. Tell me what to care about and how I should frame this round. I've voted for teams that I disagreed with entirely simply because the opposing team didn't contest their framework.

4. Speed is highly discouraged. I will appreciate you so much more if you only have 2-3 really well-developed arguments delivered in a conversational tone than if you scream-read 20 trivial arguments without ever looking up from your laptop.

5. Counterplans are fine. I especially liked to run the States CP in high school.

6. I know topicality is important, and I will consider it a paramount issue if you do the work of explaining why. Don't just read an interpretation and a violation; you MUST read standards and voters.

7. Generic disadvantages are fine, you just need to do more thorough analysis on why the DA links to the aff.

8. Not a big fan of kritiks. I would stay away from them.

Lay Judge with Tabula Rasa leanings - Looking for concise and clear arguments.

Community Judge (Male, Age 66)

1.) Did not debate in High School

2.) Did not debate in College but did get a BS.

3.) No elimination rounds on the topic.

4.) No preliminary rounds on the topic.

5.) Tournaments - DB8 at the Silver Lake Debate Invitational, FSSL at KSHSAA 4 Speaker Regionals.

6.) Judging Criteria:

I. Priorities - Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Approach - Skills emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating")

III. Speed - Moderate contest rate, faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans - Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the the negative approach.

V. Topicality - Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

VI. Generic disadvantages - Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I am a former debate coach in central/western Kansas. I tend to vote stock issues. I am not wild about kritiks, counterplans, or "off the wall" topicality arguments, but I will listen. The message is important, but so is speaking style and skill.

I debated four years in high school and four years in college. But it was many years ago. Since then I have judged debates over the past 30 years. But it is probably wise to consider me a lay judge. I was trained as a stock issues debater. The slower the better, including 1AC. Look at me as much as possible. We did not use a lot of counterplans and critiques were not a thing then. I am a dinosaur.

1. Communicative skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

2. Skill emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating") best describes my paradigm or approach to judging debate.

3. A fairly rapid delivery presentation is acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

4. Counterplans are acceptable even if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

5. Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

6. I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

7. I find kritiks acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I debated for four years in high school and competed in 4-speak regional and state tournaments during that time. I have judged two rounds on this year's topic prior to this tournament.

- Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

- A stock issues emphasis is my default, but I can be a policy maker if both teams take the round that way. Debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them.

- I am extremely flow oriented and a clear roadmap and signposting is ideal. I don't mind speed/rapid delivery as long as the presentation is clearly enunciated and I can keep up with the flow.

- Counterplans are rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

- Topicality is fairly important, roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

- I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

- I do not like kritiks and prefer specific real world arguments.

I debated 4 years in high school, and have judged/assistant coached at plenty of tournaments since I graduated in 2018. I am currently a college student. I value communication skills a lot, but the arguments being made MUST have substance. I'm typically a tab judge, and will value what you convince me is most important; but if no perspective is given by the debaters, I will default policy maker. I have no preference in speed as long as you speak clearly. CPs are fine, and topicality is fine, Ks are okay if you break them down for me. Disadvantages should have clear links to the aff, and should all be impacted out.

Scott W. Sexton

Silver Lake, Kansas

1- Did I debate in High School? Yes, 3 years experience.

2- Did I debate in College? No.

3- How many elimination rounds have I judged on this topic? None that I know of.

4- How many preliminary rounds have I judged on this topic? Three.

4- List of tournaments I've judged at this year. Silver Lake, HS.

5-

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

-Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

-Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”) and Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

-No preference regarding speed. Clarity of speech and thought are more important.

Counterplans are:

-Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

Topicality is:

-Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

I find generic disadvantages:

-Generally acceptable.

VII. I find kritiks:

-Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School in Kansas. Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches andCEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching multiple cx teams at NSDA nationals and taking 1st or 2nd at State pretty much every year from 2011 to 2021.

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

*Disclaimer*: I'm a parent judge. I know what I am doing but I am not an expert at debate by any means and this paradigm is being written with assistance from my son.

I default to policymaker, but will become tabula rasa if framework is presented to me.

You can speak quickly, but I have to be able to understand what you are saying for me to listen. If I can't understand you I don't care about what you are saying.

In regards to Disadvantages, I don't like impacts that are unrealistic. I rarely listen to nuke war impacts. I'd rather you use realistic impacts that are highly likely. Other than that, specific links are preferred but not absolutely necessary.

In rebuttals you need to tell me why I should vote for you and why I should not vote for the other team. If you don't lay out a reason I should vote for you, I most likely won't do so.

I will rarely vote on topicality so don't run it unless the aff is ridiculously untopical.

Do not run a counterplan unless you are very good at them. If you run it wrong it will just confuse me and I probably will not vote for you in that case.

I will listen to theory, but you have to explain it very well.

I don't like kritiks so don't run them.

Ryan Tarner

Debated 4 years at Silver Lake High School

I judged 3 rounds at the Silver Lake Home Invitational Tournament earlier this year and I judged at Regionals this year.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. Who does the better job at debating, stocker issues emphasis, and policy maker emphasis prescribe my approach to judging. For speaking pace go at a pace that I can understand what you're saying so a moderate contest rate please. Counterplans are acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach. Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round. However sometimes with T the violation must be fairly blatant for me. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. Finally I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

I debated in high school for one year, but continued to spend time in the debate room and cut cards with the team all throughout. I participated in congress legislation through high school. I went on to Study Political Science and Logic and Reasoning within the school of philosophy.

I️ have judged 7 prelim rounds on this topic and am extensively aware of arguments that are being made on the circuit.

Tabula Rasa unless no decision is made then I️ will vote on game player rules. Please don't bring up new significant cards in the 1NR, and focus on major arguments in 1NC. I️ will vote on debatability and look for cases that open up an extensive playing field of arguments. Generic disadvantages are OKAY if links are well researched. I️ will vote on well constructed counter plans with actual plan of action and if there is strong policy maker emphasis. I don't love topicality arguments- though if it needs to be made, please make it. I️ will vote on policy making and all stock issues outside of topicality. I️ am okay with speed reading but please make clear your resolution. No preference for road maps.

Policy maker/Hypothesis tester Judge, did debate in high school, 1 year of college debate, 5th year of judging. I value clarity and well thought out responses about the impacts of arguments, this includes how likely the impact is to occur. I've actually done academic research on this topic, do not intentionally misrepresent your sources.

T is not an issue unless you make it one, don't feel like you need to run a topicality argument just to run one. Counterplans are generally fine, conditional counterplans are abusive, don't run a K unless it is a really, really good K.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

I will flow, but I am a policymaker judge. Make sure your plan has real-world potential. Assume I am a lay judge.

Topicality is an acceptable argument

I do not like speed - keep a conversational pace

CP's are acceptable and K's are alright in very rare circumstances.

Good Luck

I am stock issues judge, but vote using standards and voters provided by the teams in the round. If neither stock issues or a voting paradigm are established by the competing teams I will utilize a policy maker paradigm.

Structure and labelling is very important to me in my evaluation of arguments. Topicality and disadvantages should be structured and labelled for me to give weight to them. I expect at minimum a definition, standards, and voters for topicality; and a link, brink, and an impact for a disadvantage argument.

Please emphasize the tagline, source, and date of your evidence so that the point you are making is clear.

I do not mind counterplans or Kritiks , but they must be ran properly and not treated as throw-away arguments or I will vote against you.

I am a former debater and have five years of judging experience with debate. I am a stock issues judge. Disadvantages are okay/allowable as long as their links and impacts tie to the Affirmative case. I never think Kritiques are acceptable/allowable in a round. I will only listen to counterplans if they are run properly and can be shown as to how they tie out from the Affirmative plan.

I have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Reyna Valenzuela

City Arma State KS

1) Did you debate in high school? X Yes No

Number of years 1

2) Did you debate in college? Yes X No

Number of years 0

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: DEB at South Kansas District Tournament

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

C I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

b. Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

A/E II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

B/C III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

C IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

d. Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

B V. Topicality is:

a. Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

B VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

B VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.

Things I dislike:

Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.

Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.

*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.

* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.

Position on the following:

Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.

Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I see disadvantages as very important points in the round. I don't know much about K debate. Be a great communicator. Please provide great evidence and analysis.