I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

I debated for 3 years in high school but was not very competitive. I graduated in 2016 and have come back to judge every year since then. I’m ok with all forms of arguments but I want you to explain them as best you can. The better you explain and summarize the more likely I’ll buy your case. I also care very much about how you represent yourself and your school, so please treat your opponents with respect.

I was a high school debater and have judged debate at least once or twice a year for the last 20 years.

I prefer to judge rounds based on the validity of arguments and evidence that supports those arguments.

I don't like to base decisions on topicality (especially this year) unless it is abundantly clear that a team is pushing the limit of topicality and the negative can prove it. Even then, I like other arguments in addition to topicality.

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’m a blank slate. Your round you tell me how to vote.

I've coached for three years.
I like well thought-out closing arguments.
Speak clearly and not too quickly, so I can understand you.

I'm looking out for good and well-mannered speakers.
I don't have a preference on arguments you use as long as you make sure to explain and interpret them well.

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

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.

EXPERIENCE: I competed at State all four years of high school in the 4 speaker category on the negative side. I went completely undefeated, winning the State Championship in 2017. I have also been judging semi-regularly since then.

PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa - this is your debate, argue it how you see fit. I will be flowing and keeping track of arguments. Below are some more defined opinions of mine on arguments, but I'm open to anything.

TOPICALITY: this is honestly my favorite stock issue when it's used correctly. If you are using it include standards AND voters, or it's not a complete argument. T is also AU PRIORI.

DISADVANTAGES: I will listen to any DA no matter how generic it is. That being said, generic links don't hold as well as specific links, especially when AFF knows what they're doing. I am fine with any impact, you know its always fun when things end in nuclear war.

COUNTER PLANS: if you run one of these, please know what you are doing. There is a right and a wrong way to run and argue against a counterplan, and if you don't argue it right, you will lose my vote.

KRITIKS: I will listen it to. If there's one type of argument I don't particularly like, its this one. But if you feel it necessary, go for it, but be able to justify why you are using a kritik.

OTHER THINGS: I will only vote on things brought up in the round, so if there is a glaring contradiction and its not pointed out, I will not be considering it. I don't really care how fast you talk, just make sure that everyone can understand you.

If you have any questions about my judging style, just ask before the round starts!

My debate experience includes three years of high school debate in the late 1980's and judging high school debate for my children's high school when asked over the past ten years. I have no college debate experience and believe that in many ways high school and college debate are two disparate activities. Please remember this is not a college debate tournament. Borrowing from my school's coach, "Find that sweet spot of speed, volume, clarity, and engagement while being informative and resourceful."

I will flow your arguments during the round to the best of my ability. I understand the concept of dropped arguments and the negative block. Clarity of speech organization is critical to generating clash between the teams and showing me how each argument relates to the speech delivered by the first affirmative speaker. Teams who fail to communicate how their point applies to the previous speakers' speeches might find I feel an argument was dropped that they thought was not.

My decisions are based on evaluation of the stock issues in conjunction with my flow sheet. Topicality is fine; DA's are fine. But, while affirmative teams should not defend their position solely by asserting "generic-ness" of the argument, the affirmative team also should feel comfortable spending the bulk of their time refuting arguments specific to their case rather than focusing on a negative team’s generic, perhaps unstructured and non-clashing arguments. Negative teams running any topicality arguments or DA's should structure them appropriately in order for them to receive full consideration in the final ballot.

I have no appetite for hearing any kritiks.

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.

I am a former policy debater - 4 years at Tonganoxie, class of '98.

I did competitive speech in college - 4 years at Nebraska Wesleyan, class of '02.

I judge a few rounds every few years. This year I judged at the Topeka West and Tonganoxie tournaments.

In general I would say I am a Stock Issues judge by default, but am open to being convinced otherwise in the round.

That said, I'll rarely vote on T.

I'm looking for good clash on the flow, a comprehensive coverage of the issues in/through the round, and a reasoned debate.

Speed is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the above.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

Bill Day is the Superintendent of Schools for USD 405 in Lyons. He was a high school debater and has experience judging debate tournaments.

Maybe the easiest, but hardest way to say this is, I want a good debate. I want a good analysis of your evidence and good defense of your position.

I was a 1N/2A speaker in high school - I do appreciate a well thought out topicality argument, but really appreciate the debate focusing on the plan presented.

Not a big fan of critiques or counter plans and other items that feel like a "cop-out" for lack of a better way to say it.

Be respectful of one another - especially in CX.

Have fun and focus on defending your position. :)

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.

From the standard paradigm sheet:

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

- Policy Maker/Tabula Rasa/Flow. Default to Policy Maker (expect impact calculus).

- Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated -- very rapid speed discouraged. Speed if you can, don't if you can't.

- 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. I expect standards/voters from both sides, must pull to rebuttals.

- I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable. Prefer specific links.

- I find kritiks general acceptable. Prefer specific links.

General Notes:

- I prefer off-case to on-case, and I generally don't care about stock issues. Since Topicality is flowed off-case, it serves as a prerequisite to on-case debate. Solvency is the only on-case argument that will be used to evaluate the 1AC against any off-case such as disadvantages/CPs/Ks.

- I fully support the use of CP's and K's, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

In general I am looking for solid argumentation. I have no stomach for resting assumptions on trivial challenges to picky rules that you feel have not been met. Cross examine, back your argumentation on solid evidence (I am a sucker for good source citation) and meld your growing argument not on trickery but a good foundation of ideas and evidence. If you talk fast, be sure to make eye contact with me and the judges (or screen) - I'm not impressed by fast reading. If you can't make it your own in the actual time allotted, then you need to pare it down. I am a tabula rasa and am open to lots of different perspectives. Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.). I'm fine with theory, as long as you have solid evidence to support. I am swayed by emotional appeal - that is to say, if you are PASSIONATE about your argument and you speak to me, I find that compelling. A regurgitation of random thoughts that don't come from you or seem distant to you are not going to get me to give you that edge. I look for logic and emotion.

I'm a former high school debater and prefer a stock-issue paradigm. Additionally, I prefer a slow speed of reading where everyone can understand what is being said at a reasonable rate. Other than that, anything goes!

I competed in debate and forensics for four years in high school, and coached our middle school program. I tend to lean towards policy maker voting and plan-based debate versus stock issues. I like a good squirrel case. I love a good topicality argument - like, a really good topicality argument - but hate a bad one. I dislike single-issue debates and absolutely expect debaters to have more than one argument against the aff case.

I will flow rounds. I expect respectful and educational debates.

Good luck! Can't wait to see you.

I’m a stock issues judge. Go at your preferred speed however do your best to speak clearly so I can understand what you’re saying. I debated in high school and have been judging tournaments for two years now however I’m not knowledgeable about K debate. Do your best, communicate clearly, and use good evidence and analysis.

I am a science teacher, so participants who know their stuff on scientific topics they present will typically impress me more than those who try to (for lack of a better term) BS their way through an explanation. As far as presentation, I prefer that if you are speaking fast, make sure it is easy to understand and follow. I have been judging for a couple years now, and do not have a lot of previous debate experience, so periodic recaps are also a welcome addition to any speech.

Please include me in the email chain: lisacarlos@sbcglobal.net

Back in the day, I was a high school debater (Hutchinson Trinity Catholic). More recently, I coached high school debate (also at TC) for five years. I prefer the classic style of debating with weight given to speaking style and elegantly developed arguments with direct clash. I appreciate courteous manners.

I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge with expectations that all stock issues will be met.

I am a flow judge. I am ok with fast talking, but if I can't flow it is too fast (I will try to indicate this through the camera).

I don't like kritiks, so if you run one, please have a good reason and explain it well.

Stock issues are important to me, but not necessarily the sole issue of my ballot (BUT if something is glaring, I will vote on it).

I am fine with a good Topicality argument. I am ok with counterplans if they are run well and carefully explained.

I will not do any of the work for you. If there is an obvious contradiction, but it is not pointed out. I won't consider it.

I love a good disadvantage with a direct link to the affirmative case.

In rebuttals, I greatly appreciate impact calculus and weighing the round.

Things I don't like: redundancy, claiming that the other team "lied" about something, condescending remarks, generic arguments used as a timesuck.

I consider it an honor to be judging -- thank you for choosing to debate!

Past Debate experience: None. However, I have been around debators and know how the sport works.

I like to see an affirmative that can defend themselves well and not cave under pressure when the negative team has strong speakers. By the end of the round you need to prove to me that your plan still works despite the negative's efforts.

For the negative, I like to see a team that can break down the affirmatives plan with finnese and not be grabbing for straws. By the end of the round you need to have made credible attacks and have me doubting the affirmatives case.

From both teams I like to have no time wasted and productive cross examination. I enjoy listening to strong speakers and am looking for finnese!

I am a very new judge and don’t know much about K debate. Please sign post. Just be a great communicator. Please provide great evidence and analysis.

I retired from Coffeyville, KS - Field Kindley Memorial HS in 2012 after coaching debate and forensics for 36 years. I continue to judge when possible. I consider myself a policy maker and prefer to weigh the impacts of the disads and advantages. Obviously, topicality and solvency will be considered, but without a reasonable and compelling DA the negative has to work harder. Additionally, I expect the Aff. to meet its prima facia burdens. I expect both sides to provide clash. Not a fan of Kritiks, but I will listen to most any argument that is relevant to the debate and expect rebuttals to narrow down to the most compelling arguments. I prefer that the round not be fast and incoherent. Clarity is key. If debaters are not clear and arguments do not link to the opponent's positions, then you leave the decision totally in my hands and I have to search for reasons to justify my decision. Not a wise choice. I have not coached for 12 years and will be out of the loop with "new debate practices". In other words, I'm old school. I can flow a round, but if a so-called argument gets by me, it won't impact my decision. Basically, "don't be stupid" and we will have fun.

As for LD and PF, I have coached both. Each have their own purpose, LD debates should establish a value. While both sides will present real world examples that support their value positions, this is not a policy debate. LD is value debate and the decision will be made for whomever wins the value debate. PF was originally intended to debate current events. Not sure that’s the case anymore, but as I rarely hear PF debates, I expect each team to present evidence and arguments that support their side best. Both LD and PFD were developed as an answer to bad, fast, incoherent policy debates. I expect LD and PF to be slow, conversational and persuasive.

I competed in high school debate in a small 4A/3A school for four years in the late 80’s, was part of K-State’s CEDA national championship team in the 90’s. I coached for about 10 years before taking a break to raise kids and I am now in my 5th year back.

I know debate and my coach's heart is strong. . . but I am better at the older style of debate than the newer style of debate.

Important:

1. My most important rule is “Be Kind.” There is a reason this activity needs to be accessible to all. Don’t pollute the activity that I love.

2. I used to say speaking fast is fine. I am editing my paradigm now to say that the recent fast rounds that I have judged have not been articulated clearly enough for me to understand. In the end, this is still a communication activity. Additionally, mindless reading of blocks without clash is not good debate. Please flow and put your arguments on the flow. You shouldn't be able to speak from just a preloaded block on your computer. I enjoy line by line argumentation. I expect summarizing and explanation in between. I appreciate speed most when it is utilized to analyze and weigh responses and dislike when teams spread through unwarranted responses to attempt to overwhelm the other team.

3. I am probably closest to a policy-maker or a stock issues judge, but am willing to consider other paradigms if you want me to.

4. I expect you to weigh the round and analyze the voting issues in the final rebuttals.

5. Please include me in any email chain or evidence sharing, but I will probably only look at the evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

6. I will not evaluate any K's, or theory arguments unless you tell me how to approach the argument and how it weighs in the round. Don’t get me wrong, I am willing to listen to K's, although I have little experience reading or evaluating them. If you run these arguments, please avoid excessive jargon. You are going to have to be super clear.

7. Cross-ex is for questions not arguments. You will get a lot further with your argumentation if you save it for the speech. I don’t flow cross-ex and usually am working on the ballot during that time.

8. I will vote on topicality if necessary.

9. I will not vote on vagueness unless clarifying questions are asked of the affirmative in cross-examination AND their case becomes a moving target.
10. I will not vote on disclosure theory. Just debate the round.
11. I know that I am old school, but I believe that feeding your partner what to say during their speech or cross-ex makes that partner look weak. Trust your partners. They are smart people.
12. I hate rudeness and will penalize. Don’t put another person down and don’t try to make them look stupid . . . other than that, speaks are based on strategy/arguments, not style/speaking ability. I stick to 27 - 30 for speaker points unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I am frustrated by excessive tech time (there is a reason that we added prep-time). Please keep a fair track of your time. I don’t want to have to worry about it. But don’t cheat on time.

If you have any questions, ask before the round. I will do my best to give you meaningful feedback about your strengths in the round and how I think you can improve on the ballot.

Best of luck! Have fun! Enjoy! Form connections . . . that’s what debate is all about!

I've only judged one tournament, but my child is in debate and he has helped me understand the basics. I don't have any prejudices for or against particular arguments. Because I am a newcomer, if you speak too quickly I may not catch all your points. I will be taking notes to refer back to when making my decisions.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No – but I did 4 years of forensics.

2) Did you debate in college?

No

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

0 – but have judged forensics.

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

0 – but have judged forensics.

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

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?

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

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

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

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

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, 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:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

I did not debate in high school, but I have been teaching language arts for 17 years, including speech classes, and I have been coaching forensics for 6 years.

I want content that is relevant to the topic and current. I will look for evidence that supports your argument and a logical argument overall. I prefer real-world arguments. I am open to a variety of strategies to make your point, but you must keep your information clear and linear. Speed is ok as long as you can speak clearly and enunciate. I should be able to easily follow your argument.

I will not tolerate rude behaviors or negativity toward the other team. I favor polite debates. I expect you to speak fluently and coherently and treat each other with respect.

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.

I debated for 3 years in high school and 1 year in college and have been a coach for 4 years.

I almost always am a policymaker with some exceptions when it comes to kritiks.

I prefer any impact other than nuclear war. I'll listen to nuclear war impacts on DAs, and I've voted for them but I have to be able to see a clear connection on why the voting for the aff would cause a war, the links need to be very strong. As a policymaker I want to be able to evaluate how the plan would hypothetically affect people which is why I tend to prefer smaller magnitude impacts that let me weigh the benefits of the aff with the potential harm to individuals. Also on DAs, I highly value uniqueness. If you're going to run a generic link, at the very least have super recent evidence. Same goes for specific links as well; recency will almost never hurt you, but old evidence will.

As for topicality, I don't mind it and have voted on it before but to win on T alone with me you'd have to do significant work on the voters. I will not vote on T because the neg thinks the aff might be abusive, you have to be committed to this strategy all the way to persuade me to move away from a policymaker framework to examine topicality.

I don't enjoy counterplans but I'm not opposed to them. If you think that a CP is your best strategy in that round then by all means go for it, just know that I almost always will think that there are better arguments to have made. On the aff, I don't want you to read every perm in the book. Do some solid work on theory and I will likely buy it.

Kritiks are important and have some place in debate. That said I don't want to hear a K every round, but I am familiar with most literature and as I said above value arguments that allow me to weigh the aff with the impacts on individual people. The role of the ballot is very important to me, along with being able to do the analysis on your own without just reading a block at me. You will need to do a significant amount of work to get to move me from policymaking to kritiks, however if you think this is your best strategy I trust your judgement, just show me it is your strongest argument.

As for the aff, I don't like K affs, and I prefer a lot of advantages (scenarios). I believe affs should read a plan text. Don't get too overwhelmed by the neg and forget about your case. Far too frequently I see affs that have totally lost track of their advantages by the 1AR. I will not weigh your advantages against the neg if you left them untouched after the 1AC.

In general, I'm not picky on your speed, I'll flow the round so please be very clear on what arguments you are making and where on the flow you want them. I will flow however you want as long as you tell me what argument/card goes where. I like a strong impact calc throughout the round. Anyone can read cards, I value the analysis of if the proposed policy is good or bad and why. There's more to that than just reading the evidence.

If you have questions about specific arguments or want more information about something you can ask me before the round or email me at lglingenfelter@gmail.com

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Kate Martin

City Swan Point State MD

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes

Number of years 4

2) Did you debate in college? No

Number of years N/A

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

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic? 1

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: KSHSAA 4A Regionals

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

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

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

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

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

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated. Whatever speed you choose, make sure that I can understand you so that I can adequately evaluate your arguments.

IV. Counterplans are:

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

V. Topicality is:

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

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

Generally acceptable.

Experience:

Debate at 3A & 4A level all four years of high school in KS. Third place pairing at 3A 2-speaker in 2014. College debate for 3 semesters. I did LD, IPDA, and parli debate and qualified for nationals. All this to say, I know what the terms are so don't worry about explaining things to me like I am a lay judge.

Paradigm:

I am typically a flow judge, so if you fail to answer or drop an argument on the flow you will likely lose it. Whoever has the best arguments standing on the flow at the end of the round wins. That being said I can be persuaded by the overall big picture if you do the work for me and show me exactly why you believe you won the flow and the round. I’m a big believer in impacting out your arguments.

If you want me to use another type of framework, that's fine just let me know early on.

Please signpost and give a roadmap at the top of your speech. Off time roadmap are fine.

I know we are online but please keep your comments to each other during the other speeches at a minimum. its distracting and unprofessional. Strategy and planning comments are fine, I'm referring to eye rolling and clearly rude comments.

I am big on impacting out arguments. Make sure you tell me exactly how your disadvantage or solvency really gets the job done.

I will take into account analytical arguments, feel free to make them.

Do not be rude to other opponents during CX. This will cost you speaks.

Feel free to speed if your articulation can keep up with you.

Please feel free to ask questions for clarification.

I did debate in high school and know its educational value for both participates and judges. Do NOT ruin the educational value by doing any of the following things: being rude to opponents; running an absurd amount of weak arguments to overwhelm aff aka "spreading"; use words like "common sense"; drop arguments, or fail to show evidence. Clash is what I want to see as a judge, use evidence to support every claim, and if you are on the neg make sure links are case-specific Neg can run DA's but know they take a lot of time to fully explain and if Aff beats any part of it I will flow it over to them. Aff make sure to tell me why I should care during every speech.

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.

I'm a policy maker judge so I highly value real world impacts of the plan. Giving some impact calculus and weighing the round are a good way to sway my vote. I will flow the entire round so stock issues can be a deciding factor- especially solvency. I don't like kritiks, so if you want to run one make sure you run it well.

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.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No

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?

5

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

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?

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

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

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. If you talk so fast that I can't understand you, I will be unable to consider your position.

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. Be warned: If you run a topicality argument an obvious time-wasting exercise to use up the clock, you will lose the round. Clearly articulate your violation, and standards and voters.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. Note these must be explain in detailed, very clearly, with analytics, in a clear straight line, and without hyperbole.

VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific, real-world arguments.

Other:

I flow. I value consistency. I am not a fan of theory, theoretical arguments, or pleas to my perceived humanity. Engaging in "mental well-being" or "on-going trauma" arguments are unlikely to prove profitable . I want clear, factual, specific, non-specious arguments that are ground in analytics and the provable. Properly constructed scientific and economic arguments are preferred over theoretical end of the world scenarios, political hyperbole and highly partisan dogma. This applies equally to both end of the political spectrum. The onus is on you to convince me of your position.

If you try and lie in your 2AR, you will be caught and voted down.

I do not need your files.

I debated for all 4 years of high school and went to state every year. I have judged 4 rounds on this topic, therefore I am not super familiar with the topic specifically, but I know my way around debate.

Communication skills and the flow are of about equal importance to me. If you significantly lack either you will not win the round. Debate is a communication activity so I need to be able to understand your arguments and you need to tell me how they apply (where it goes on the flow and why it matters to the round).

I consider myself a stock issues and policy maker judge. Stock issues are the first priority. As the aff, if you lose a stock issue you will lose the round. However, just because you win all of the stock issues does not necessarily mean you will win the round. If the neg can prove to be comparatively advantageous (through disadvantages or counterplans) then they can win the round. In order for the aff to win, they must prove that their case works (win all stock issues) and that it is advantageous to do so (outweigh advantages to disadvantages).

I am okay with quicker delivery, however I need to be able to understand taglines. Also please do not speed through your explanation of arguments. It is okay to read quicker on the actual evidence, but please do not spread.

Counterplans are completely fine, just please run them correctly. If you do not run the CP correctly, it will not get my vote.

Topicality is very important when making my decision. If the aff loses topicality, they will not win the round. Please run T shells correctly.

I love generic disadvantages. The argument that a generic disadvantage does not have a specific link to the specific case will not sway my vote. This is state: if you cannot answer a generic DA you should not be here. Obviously specific links are better, but I will not reward the aff for just saying "it is generic and can be applied to any case". Generic DA's are made to be applied to any case and this is state, there will be cases that nobody has heard of before.

As far as kritiks go, I think they are ruining policy debate. You can run a K, but it is a waste of your time to me. I will not vote for a K unless the other team just does not address it. Your time can be spent better elsewhere.

Quick note on how I judge net advantageousness. If the aff has 3 advantages still standing at the end of the round and the neg has 2 disadvantages, the aff is net advantageous. However if the neg has 3 disadvantages still standing at the end of the round and the aff only has 2 advantages, the neg is net advantageous which will result in a negative vote. The aff must be net advantageous in this way or through magnitude, and win all of the stock issues.

From what I have typed it may seem like I vote neg all the time. I was a 1N on our 4 speaker team for 2 years so I love negative debate. However, I am pretty 50/50 in my judging career voting aff and neg. I can simplify it down to this. Aff: if you protect your case and prove that it is advantageous to pass your plan you will win. Neg: if you can poke a hole in their case or prove that it is net disadvantageous to pass their plan you will win. Best of luck to you all, and thanks for continuing to debate even in such a weird year!

I am a teacher.

First time judging debate.

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.

I debated in high school and college but that was in the 1980s; I have coached the past 37 years but at a 5A or 4A school in Kansas. With those two pieces of information, I'm pretty traditional in my approach to debate. I am a policymaker. I like communication, but I will try to keep a good flow if you will PLEASE signpost and label arguments; real words make it easier for me to flow than big gasps and high-pitched droning noises. I will NOT be looking at any electronic copies of arguments or evidence; I believe that debate is an oral communication activity, so I will be listening to and flowing what you actually say. I try to avoid being interventionist in the round, but I will struggle with believing things that are unrealistic. I don't care for a lot of theory discussion; I would prefer to hear about this year's resolution. I LOVE direct clash!

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 have never been a student of debate. However, I have judged for several years. I want content that is relevant to the topic. I get annoyed when students argue over vocabulary words longer than 2 statements. I try to listen for current research. I like logical questions.

I debated in high school for four years. I have not judged on this topic.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I do not like rapid delivery. I don't know much about K debate. Just be a great communicator. Please provide great evidence and analysis.

I spent my high school years (graduated in 2010) participating in policy debate and managed to qualify for CFL and NFL nationals during that period. Although I have not been very active in the community since then, I have judged some debates (mostly novice, but some more advanced) in the years since.

In other words, I am very familiar with the activity but a little rusty. I can keep up with moderately fast debates - some speed reading is OK but if you're gasping for breath every few sentences I will have trouble following specifics. Make sure tag lines are read a little slower and clearly at a minimum. I prefer a slower pace in kritical debates.

I tend to default to a 'policy making' paradigm and highly value impact calculus. Tell me how and why to vote for you and you'll have a leg up.

Happy to listen to kritiks but as mentioned previously, I tend to prefer a slower pace with these. If you understand the argument and explain it clearly I will be happy to listen.

Less interested in topicality and theory debates unless truly warranted. If you make these arguments I prefer a slower pace and thorough explanations.

I look for strong debating, good policy, and a good defense of that policy. Not a fan of counterplans. Topicality is important. I do not like ridiculous harms like nuclear war. Strong debating, good speaking skills are what I like to see.

I was A SPEECH AND DEBATE COACH. I HAVE BEEN JUDGING SINCE 1996.

SPEED-I DON'T MIND SPEED AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING SO FAST THAT EITHER YOUR OPPONENT OR I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IF I CAN'T FLOW YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE, YOU LOSE. THERE MUST BE CLASH IN DEBATE. IF YOUR SPEED KEEPS YOUR OPPONENT FROM BEING ABLE TO DEBATE YOU, I CONSIDER IT ABUSIVE.

THEORY-I DO NOT APPRECIATE THEORY CASES UNLESS YOUR OPPONENT HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS INFRACTION THAT MAKES THE DEBATE UNFAIR. IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE INFRACTION IN DETAIL.

SIGN POSTING-PLEASE SIGN POST SO THAT I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE IN THE FLOW. D

TIMING-I EXPECT YOU TO KEEP YOUR OWN TIME. PLEASE DO NOT ASK FOR TIME SIGNALS.

PRESENTATION-ALWAYS STAND WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING AND FACE ME. I WILL BE FLOWING AND WILL LIKELY NOT LOOK AT YOU MUCH EXCEPT DURING CROSS-EX.

PREPARATION-COME INTO THE DEBATE PREPARED. DO NOT ASK FOR TIME TO PRE-FLOW. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT EARLIER.

RESPECT-I EXPECT YOU TO BE RESPECTFUL TO BOTH YOUR OPPONENT AND YOUR JUDGE. RUDENESS WILL COST YOU SPEAKER POINTS.

I AM OPEN TO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING IN YOUR CASES, BUT IT STILL NEEDS TO LINK TO THE TOPIC.

Forensics: I have been involved in coaching at both the HS and college level for many years. My paradigm skews toward college; I expect important topics ("need to know") in informative/POI/OO. I expect excellent organization and signposting in PA events. For interp, I love internalization and nuance over volume and bombast :). I am at home judging all events; in duo, I prefer interp over acting. IDA is not my favorite.

I've been involved in HS debate for over 30 years, which makes me "old school." I was an assistant coach for many of those years; I also coached college speech.

I consider my paradigm to be "real world". How does legislation get passed in the real world (or how should it if USFG operated as the founders intended)? It's a combination of policymaker and stock issues. Specifically:

--Topicality is a voting issue, but don't waste my time running T unless you have a valid objection.

--I expect there to be a reason to change (more than just advantages.) What's wrong with the present system? I expect you to debate case and plan and off-case. Don't ignore observations, etc.

--Disads need to be specificlally linked to case. I'm not a fan of terminal impacts (e.g., extinction.) Keep the impacts real world.

--Counter plans are OK, but I believe they need to be non-topical and mutually exclusive.

--Not a fan of kritiks.

--I appreciate impact calc in rebuttals. Weigh the round.

--Clash is essential. Please just don't read cards/block and expect me to do the work to apply it to your opponent. You need to state your objections and support them.

--Speed. Some speed is OK, but I expect to be able to understand you and flow your arguments. Debate should help you develop real world skills, and speed talking isn't one of them.

--Have fun and be nice!

BTW, I debated criminal justice reform when I was in high school in the 1970s...:)

I was actively involved in coaching debate and forensics for 36 years (12 at the college level and 24 at he high school level). At the college level I coached a CEDA championship team and a Lincoln Douglas championship at Pi Kappa Nationals. At the high school level I coached 12 State 4-speaker Debate championships. I have been retired from coaching for 8 years, with ongoing exposure to high school debate as a judge. I enjoy direct argument clash utilizing evidence and logic. Further, if arguments can be presented in an eloquent manner, my enjoyment increases exponentially.

Stock issues that I pay attention to would include topicality, real world harm analysis, solvency, and the advantages/disadvantages of any policy decision. I am not a big fan of kritiks or DAs without specific links to the plan text. I do look at impact calculus as a factor in policy making decisions.

Finally, I favor a polite well reasoned debate and do not tolerate logical fallacies or the misuse of evidence to further one's claims. Respect for colleagues, opponents, and judges is important.

I look forward to listening to the best and the brightest debaters in Kansas!

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.

Name: Jessica Trudell

Experience: (Competitor) Four years HS and four years college (parli, LD, speech, and policy). (Asst. Coach) Six years (Oklahoma and Kansas). (Mentor) Two years (Hawaii). I have judged off and on for 18 years.

I would like to be a part of the email chain please. Foreignpolicyjess82@yahoo.com *This allows a quicker decision at the end. I can follow along for clipping. I also can read along and quickly pull up a piece of evidence that comes into question or becomes a premium target in the round. It protects both sides and allows me to make the best decision possible.

I am pretty decent at the flow, but there is no speed debate on these islands, so I’m a bit rusty. Go full speed if you are crystal clear. Besides that, decent speed. If I don’t hear it, I don’t flow it. I know COVID has change the dynamics of debate. I’ll say “CLEAR” once to give you a heads up to slow down.

To be honest, I will listen to anything and everything. With this topic, I’ve been using the policy judge paradigm mentality. But, you set up the debate and let me know, I’m down. I love a good off case debate any day, but I thrive on that on case debate as well. You debate how you debate. Judge adaptation is important, but to me this is a learning experience, “you do you boo-boo”.

Off time road map is fine. Open crossx is fine as long as the tournament rules permit it and both teams agree.

Disclosure- do it right and before round. This is for fun and learning. Not trying to be sneaky.

Feel free to ask me any questions prior to the debate.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

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.

***PF - NSDA Tournament***

Experience:

I competed at NSDA nationals in PF twice (2014, 2015) but have not judged PF before.

General notes:

I care very much about clash and engaging with your opponent's ideas. My least favorite type of debate is when teams are like ships passing in the night, completely focused on their own talking points such that no dialogue is achieved. Obviously the first constructives are going to be almost entirely pre-prepared, but after that you should be directly challenging each other.

Crossfire is my favorite part of the debate so if you do well, I look at that very favorably. If you're the reason crossfire is bad (e.g. stalling, evasive answers, poor lines of questioning, etc.) I won't be a fan.

I care somewhat more about rhetorical effectiveness in PF than I would in policy, but argumentation is still much more important than pretty speaking.

I flow and make decisions based on the flow so try to be structured (e.g. signposting and numbered lists).

Your final focus should essentially write my RFD for me, and I should be able to trace the claims you make in the final focus back to places on the flow (where you presumably outargued your opponent).

———

***POLICY***

Experience:

I debated for 3 years in high school and have judged policy debate a few times (<5) in the past.

General paradigm:

Tabula rasa, default policymaker.

Some specifics:

Read whatever arguments you want, but I have less experience with kritikal theory so you'll have to do a lot more setup work if you want me to understand and be able to vote on those arguments. I generally think affs should be topical, and default to competing interpretations (but obviously feel free to change my mind). I tend to give much much more weight to creative/interesting arguments than cookie cutter stuff. I look very favorably upon the use of cross-x as a weapon, and look poorly upon evasive answers/stalling from the person being examined. I flow and make decisions based on the flow so try to be structured (e.g. signposting and numbered lists).

Speed:

I prefer tags/cites to be conversational, cards can be faster if you maintain excellent clarity. I'll say clear 3 times before I start docking speaker points.

2020-21 Topic:

I've judged zero rounds for this year's topic and don't have any special knowledge of the criminal justice system. As such, don't assume I'm familiar with a topic that isn't common knowledge.

Experience: I did debate all four years of high school and medaled at State three times. I have judged two tournaments this season.

Topicality: I am fine with Topicality. However, I would encourage you to only run it when you can make a strong case that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve. Too many people waste time on flimsy Topicalities. The best way to win me over on Topicalities is to argue Standards; prove to me why your interpretation is superior. If the Neg can prove that the Aff doesn't meet the Resolve, then it's game over for the Aff.

DA's: I will entertain almost any DA. However, a DA with a generic link won't hold nearly as much weight in the round as a DA with a specific link. Finally, I'm not a huge fan of terminal impacts. Don't just give me a crazy impact simply to have the biggest impact in the round; make it somewhat plausible. Not every DA should lead to extinction, WW3, or nuclear war.

Counter Plans: I'm not a huge fan of counter plans, but I will consider them. If you do choose to run a counter plan, please make sure that it is easy to understand and isn't a convoluted mess. Also, make sure you can prove that your counterplan is Mutually Exclusive, Nontopical, and Comparitively Advantageous.

Kritiks: I don't like kritiks and probably won't vote on one. This is policy debate, so I would prefer a debate that argues about the merits of the policy put forth by the Aff.

mary.williams@usd340.org

I have been a debate coach at Jefferson West High School since 2007. Because I teach all aspects of policy debate, I find myself open to all aspects, if done well.

Do not run K if you are not versed in the ramifications of K. Abuse of unfounded arguments should be avoided.

Otherwise, I am open to a variety of strategies to make your point. Keep information clear and linear (I should be able to flow without trying to determine where the argument lies within the debate.

Good luck to all competitors!

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.

This is my first year judging debate. I will give the win to the best argument.

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.

I don’t believe that there are true 100% tabula rasa judges, but I am about as tabula rasa as it gets. Give me a framework and a reason to prefer and I will probably but it if it makes sense. I am high flow and I evaluate stock issues. I am ok with speed for the most part and can generally keep up with most styles. Just make sure I get a tag and the author/date so I can keep the flow organized and give me weighted reasons to prefer/impact calculus.