I am primarily a policy maker judge. I want to see well-constructed advantages and disadvantages. Give me impact calc.

If the Affirmative team blatantly does not include a stock issue in their 1AC, I may well vote on that because that is unacceptable.

I accept topicality if it is presented in a complete shell. It must be obviously untopical.

I will not accept any K's.

Counterplans must be competitive and mutually exclusive.

Speaking as fast as possible is not cool. I will not flow if you spread.

I am more of a policy-maker judge who likes real-world links. I do not like counterplans, kritiks, nor speed.

Primary Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Secondary Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

I have been judging debate for four years now, however I did not debate in high school. I prefer real world arguments with strong links. I prefer arguments that make sense and stay on topic, but will vote for the team that argues their point the best and defends it with evidence. No preference on Topicality but make it worth my time. I don’t care if you run a counterplan but it needs to make sense and be defended well. Speaking pace doesn’t matter to me, but I need to be able to understand you. If I cannot understand your position, I can’t and won’t vote for you.

JUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.

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

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Mark Bergmann

City Fort Scott State KS

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes No

Number of years 0

2) Did you debate in college? Yes No

Number of years 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

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

f. Other

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

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

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

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

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

B IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

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

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

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

B V. Topicality is:

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

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

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

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

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

B VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I'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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it. Good luck!

I’ve competed in high school/college, and judged in the years since. Policy maker.

Experience:

3 years High School Debate

4 years College Parliamentary Debate

1 year CEDA College Debate

12 years Coaching High School Debate

Tabula Rasa but default to Policy Maker.

Please tell me how and where to vote so I don’t have to make that decision for you because you probably wont like it.

I favor quality of arguments and evidence over quantity.

Speed: I am ok with speed to the point that it is applicable to real life. The reading so fast you gasp for breath has no purpose in real life. Slow down on tags.

Make sure you give me a roadmap and signpost! Staying organized is key to a successful debate if you are jumping around and not indicating what you are arguing or where I should flow it may lead to trouble. I will flow it where I think it goes but that may not be what you want.

Analyze cards and weigh their relevancy in the round.

I don't love theory or T but I will listen to it and flow it if you present the argument well and it's explained correctly.

Impact calculus is key in the round and whoever can prove that has the best chance of getting the W on the ballot.

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 been in public education for 25 years as a social studies teacher. I have volunteered to judge our local tournament for the past three debate seasons. Although I am educated on the topics for each debate season, I am not an expert. I like to hear a good argument being made and defended. When a debate gets "bogged" down with technicalities, instead of making/defending an argument, I tend to get frustrated as a judge.

I'm open, just weigh the round and tell me why I should vote. I debated in high school and have judged debate since that time (many years).

I am a policy-maker judge by default. But I will vote on stock issues. 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.

Susie Glenn

Respect for your opponents and the activity is most important.

I think it's critical to stay organized during the round and make it clear when you end/begin talking about a new or the next argument. Tell me where whatever you're talking about goes on the flow.

As long as you are clear and can explain your arguments thoroughly, I don't have any preferences as to what you run.

Not a big fan of spreading.

I competed for four years in high school policy debate and I now compete on my college's debate team. I'm a stock issues and policymaker.

I can handle a pretty fast pace but no spreading, please

Typically: I don't mind it at all, but don't expect to win off of a very nitpicky one

Generic DA's: I'm fine with generic disads but make sure links are analyzed as to how it applies to their case.

K's: Not a fan of K's

CP's: Fine with those

Analyze your arguments. Don't just read a card and move on - explain to me how this applies to the round.

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

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

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

Any speed is fine.

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

I debated four years in Kansas in the early '80s. State medalist. No college debate experience. I did compete in college forensics.

I default to Policymaker with a strong emphasis on the resolution of key arguments. A speaker's ability to organize thoughts, address all arguments, provide clear analysis, and advocate for the ballot are important. T is fine if developed well. Disadvantages need to link. Counterplans are acceptable- but stick to issues rather than theory. No Speed. No K.

I have coached at the 4A level in Kansas for over three decades. I have coached 15 state championship teams and many other state medalists in 2 and 4 speaker formats. I have qualified policy teams for national tournament policy debate and had teams reach elims several times.

I have been judging debate for two years.

I prefer to see arguments related to generic/specific disadvantages/advantages as opposed to topicality arguments, otherwise I do not much preference as to how the debaters construct their arguments.

Debate Experience//

• Competitively debated at Hutch High in the champ (DCI) division in the late 90’s

• Competitively debated at K-State on the national circuit in the early 2000’s

Coaching/Judging Experience//

• Coached policy debate at Arizona State while obtaining my masters in critical/women’s rhetoric

• Coached policy debate at K-State as the assistant director

• Coached at McPherson High School, Valley Center, and Nickerson

• Currently the Director of Debate and Forensics at Hutch High

Recent Edit:

E-mail chain: yes please: SalthawkDebateChain@gmail.com, please label the subject line with tournament, team, and round #.

Stylistics Preferences//

I was a traditional policy debater in college who ran lots of counter-plans and K’s. My specialty was language/feminism krytiques, which were popular in my era. We always read a plan, but often conceded the plan caused nuclear war, but argued some form of oppression/morality outweighed. While judging college policy, I tended to judge performance based debates, as well as policy. “Academic” research can come from a variety of spaces. I cannot emphasize enough that I have very few predispositions as to what a “good” debate should look like. However, I am interested in well warranted arguments that justify your approach. So, aff’s can justify why they shouldn’t need to support the res, and neg’s can run cheater counter-plans, so long as you justify your approach with more than repetitive tag lines. Also noteworthy: if you do not argue for a particular paradigm, then I will default to a policy maker who weighs the pros/cons of the affirmative proposal/performance. As for the truth vs tech debate, sigh, I go back and forth. As a communication scholar I genuinely value the truth, but as a techy debater, I appreciate the nuances of line by line and well calculated risks. While it's un-likely you'll win by ballot on a topicality RVI, if you put enough work into it and it's relationship to the rest of the debate, it's entirely possible .

Delivery//

I am not flowing from the speech doc, however, I will use the old school technique of flowing the audible speech, perhaps with two colors of pens. In columns. If you feel I should call for 2 or 3 cards after the debate, you better make sure they are good. You cannot talk too fast for me. Keep in mind, I’m flowing from the speech and not the doc, so clarity is important. I take a good flow, and I expect you to do so as well (unless you make an argument that convinces me otherwise). You only receive credit for arguments found on my flow. If I don't know where you are, or am confused, I will give you non-verbal cues, which requires you to pay attention to me. Clash and signposting is important to me. I am not a huge fan of the approach of reading a 10 card regional overview on each sheet of paper that was pre-prepared and then proceeding to cross apply all your cards underneath on the line by line. However, I am a fan of a short regional overview, followed by a nice healthy line by line debate where you signpost what you are answering, read carded responses, provide analysis, and are critical of the other teams evidence.

K’s//

I am familiar with a lot of the literature, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the work to explain it. My familiarity shouldn’t win you the debate. Case specific links (carded or explanations) will get you better speaker points.

Language K’s//

Probably the one thing I have pre-dispositions about. We’re a communication based activity, so it will be hard to convince me that your language/representations don’t matter. It’s also 2020, I expect your evidence/tags/analysis to avoid racialized/sexist/trans-phobic language. Won’t automatically drop you, but I come from a less inclusive era and fought the good fight in debates, so supporting diversity via language/argument choices is important to me.

CP’s//

If you can justify it, do it. I wasn’t above reading a cheater CP as a debater, but I also wasn’t above going for no negative fiat in the 2AR. I have a high familiarity CP theory, but your explanations are still required.

DA’s//

Yep. Extra points if they go to extinction and/or turn back the case. I also love morality/ethics based impacts. Neg’s should be prepped to defend your internal link to nuclear war, and to defend your method of scenario building/representations vs the K. Aff’s should have new uniqueness for your link turn, or a high familiarity with your impact turns, or a K prepped.

Overall//

Debate is an academic testing ground for creativity, so be kind, be clear, and have fun!

Debater for 4 years (policy & LD) and have judged a little since. I will flow rounds but it's been a bit, so be sure to signpost. However, this means that even if a team doesn't call out a dropped argument, if they don't drop it, they win it.

I default policymaker with stock issues but will listen to any argument. If you frame the round, I will listen (don't drop fw)

I didn't run a lot of T but will vote on it. I expect affs to properly respond to T beyond "we meet" (this is critical).

Extra T, Effects T, specs, plan text args, and J are welcome and encouraged if productive and meaningful.

I enjoy counter plans but they must be competitive. Not really into K debate but will listen and judge them.

Rebuttals are critical and I appreciate good impact calculus and telling me where to and why to flow arguments. Please don't beat a dead horse.

Analytical arguments with sound logic are highly encouraged and have helped win rounds that I have judged. The key to a good debate round is debating how you feel comfortable.

Parent judge who is typically involved in debates with my family about getting homework done or which show to watch on Netflix. I've served as a judge to help my son's program at school...but that's it. No formal debate experience in school.

If I'm your judge, I prefer a conversational tone instead of speed reading. I want eye contact. I want you to persuade me of your position and make intelligent points with your evidence. I'm fine with off-the-wall arguments, but it drives me nuts when a team stretches a normal argument too far (ex: I'm pretty sure their plan is NOT going to lead to nuclear war or extinction). I don't need a copy of your cards or speech. I'll judge based on what I hear.

You'll do well if you:

- articulate your plan or your criticisms in your own words, not just read a card (show me you understand what you are arguing!)

- speak clearly so I can understand what you are saying (a little inflection goes a long way!)

- ask intelligent questions during cross examination (seek actual information, don't just fill time)

- focus more on the substance of the case rather than technicalities (ex: unless it's blatant, your topicality argument won't do much for me)

- demonstrate good sportsmanship (don't be rude or demeaning)

- work in a reference to hockey (not a requirement - just helps me respect you more as a person)

Best wishes! May the odds be ever in your favor!

I am a former high school and college policy debater. I also spent a few years coaching high school teams. It has been a few years, however, since I was actively involved in the activity.

When I decide debates, I prefer it when each team is advocating something. Whether that's the status quo, a counterplan, a definition, or an alternative. Then I decide who has presented the best case for whatever they are advocating.

I generally find theory issues to be reasons to reject the argument, not the team. But I've been convinced otherwise enough times that I can't really say it's a very strong belief.

I'm a pretty good flow and I generally get enough down that I don't need to ask for evidence. I also do not have objections to non traditional styles of debate.

I'm not a particularly strong believer in the "stock issues" but I've voted for it before.

If you do not make an argument in good faith then I likely will not weigh it heavily in the round. I will vote on an argument if you make it compelling enough to vote for. I always default back to policymaker. I will not flow spreading. There is a way to go about debate in a cordial way; if you cannot find a way to do that it will be hard to win my vote.

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

Hello friends!

My name is Dan Lyon (he/him) and I participated in policy, PFD, and LD at Fort Scott High School for four years. I also have some NDT experience and four years of college parliamentary debate experience at Washburn University. Speed is fine but please make sure you can take cues from the judge and opponent if you are unclear. Please read plan texts/CP texts/alternatives/and interpretations on T slowly.

I really enjoy juding debates and this topic is very exciting. Since COVID-19 I have judged a few debates virtually and I want to encourage you to read whatever arguments you are comfortable with and are most enjoyable to you.

I will evaluate these debates with a tabula rasa paradigm and tend to approach debate with a policy maker lense. Which team adequately defends/indicts the status quo? And is the world of the status quo preferable to the policy proposed by the affirmative? With this in mind I'm willing to consider procedural issues such as topicality. These arguments should have clear in round abuse or reasonably predictable ground lost to the negative.

Before the debate I'm willing to take a brief moment to answer questions about my paradigm and worldviews. Please be prepared and courteous to your competition.

I am a brand new lay judge who has just recently begun studying the art of debate.

My thoughts:

1. Be sure, confident, and convincing. Never offensive.

2. I love a great cross-examination. Listen closely.

3. Be confident in your evidence, and apply it in a way that makes sense to your opponent's response.

4. As you frame your debate, remember that the things you say will raise questions in your listener (me!), and seek to answer them.

5. Have fun! I admire you for choosing to enhance your experience, and spend time learning, researching, and preparing your thoughts. This type of critical thinking will be invaluable to your everyday life.

Amy

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.

Hello! My name is Chase. I am debate coach in southeast Kansas.

I use a tabula rasa ("clean slate") paradigm, so it is important to teach me your framework. Tell me how to evaluate the round. I do believe stock issues and comparative advantages are equally important. Counterplans and kritiks are acceptable if they are well-structured and thoroughly-explained. As for theoretical arguments, such as topicality or specification arguments, I think they're important, too, and I will resolve them before weighing other arguments in the round.

I am most attentive during roadmaps, signposts, taglines, emphasized words, summaries of evidence, and points of analysis. I sometimes lose interest while you are reading cards. I prefer relevant arguments that you can articulate and explain. Your arguments should have strong links, internal links, and probable impacts. I don't think debate is a "game." I think it is a search for truth.

As for speed, I prefer a moderate pace. Communicate.

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!

Former HS debater.

No college debate experience.

Have judged 1 virtual tournament on current topic.

Topicality arguments seldom win me over, unless they are blatant violations.

Disadvantages are fine, but please provide a very clear link.

Counterplans are fine, but please don't "throw something on the wall to see if it sticks."

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

As of 11/4/2023, I have yet to judge any rounds on this particular topic. That having been said, I generally operate under the assumption that you, as debaters, will propose the political and philosophical foundations for the round during your first constructive speeches. I am open to most ideas, taking into account both context and decency. In other words, do not read something inherently abrasive, discriminatory, or flagrant in order to take a stance off the beaten path, or worse, in an attempt to simply win the round. I expect cordial cross-examinations and a general level of kindness throughout the debate. If any of the debaters in the round wish to claim some form of abuse committed by the other team, please structure your abuse arguments so that I can evaluate them accordingly within the context of the debate. I coached policy debate for almost three years, and I was a policy-debater for four. I am comfortable with most speeds, and I greatly appreciate a copy of speeches in-round. With respect to my ideas on debate, as I mentioned, I am fairly open-minded. I am sympathetic to creative arguments designed to fulfill the topic's spirit in the most charitable way possible, but I will vote on flow for major issues, such as but not limited to: Topicality, Solvency, Ks, and CP/DAs. Please, if you have any specific questions about my paradigm, ask me before the round begins, and I would be happy to answer.

I have 3 years of experience in high school speech and debate, including policy debate, LD, and World Schools. I have judged on and off over the last 5 years, including KDC, DCI, and Kansas state tournaments, but the majority of my experience comes from traditional circuit judging. I am currently a Political Science major and an assistant coach for Hayden High School Speech and Debate.

I would classify myself to be a stock issues flow judge. There is some leniency to this, but for the most part I am looking for a team to win on paper. This means that you can only win on arguments that are explicitly introduced during speech time and carried throughout the round. That being said, I have no issues with anything that you choose to run, no matter how complex or absurd. The more creative and thoughtful, the better.

I am very comfortable with Ts, CPs, and Disads and highly recommend that you read them if they have any merit. T is obviously a voting issue and should be prioritized in all applicable speeches. I have absolutely no bias against Ks, but I will admit that I have limited experience with them. That being said, absolutely go for them as long as you have good alt solvency.

If your going to weigh value judgment heavily in a round I would prefer if you had a theoretical shell to back it up. I am also a stickler for framing and want your impact calc to be concrete and warranted.

I don't have a problem with spreading, as long as you are intelligible and not purposefully obstructing productive debate.

Most importantly, I will not tolerate any disrespect towards the other team.

Thanks and good luck!

I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.

I default policy maker.

I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.

K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.

DA - Huge voter with me.

Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.

Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.

Policymaker paradigm. Counterplans are acceptable. Never vote on kritiks, rarely vote on topicality arguments. Sportsmanship during the debate is important for speaker points.

Hello!

I am a previous debater from Louisburg High School. I went to the KSHSAA debate tournament in 2014 and 2015.

I'd like to say that I'm a policymaker mixed with stock issues. I believe all stock issues are a must for the affirmative, and I also value the best proved possible policy.

If you tell me to judge in a different paradigm, I will do so, but if not I default to Policy/Stock issues.

I go to each round with an open mind, politics do not sway my vote. I don't judge with my personal beliefs.

PLEASE follow the flow. If an argument is dropped, and puts a hole in the affirmative, I will vote Negative. I will flow the entire debate round. I don't care what kind of arguments are ran.

Aff- if neg drops an argument, you don't have to answer it. It wastes time and drives me nuts.

Make sure both teams pull the arguments they are keeping throughout the round (besides the aff case of course).

I approach debate from a policy maker paradigm with a bit of tab and game theory tossed in and I see the value of stock issues. In other words, I want the debaters to convince me that adoption of a policy is good or bad idea. The stock issues are a convenient frame of reference. I will not vote on issues that don't arise in a round, although I might note these on the ballot for the students' benefit. I consider sound logic and reason to be essential to good argumentation. As important as evidence is, good reasoning is more important.

I really like signposting, structure and direct clash. Your job as a debater is to make the judge's job as easy as possible. Make it easy for me to flow: signpost, recite a clear structure (outline structures really work well) and clearly show me how arguments relate to those of the other team. Generic arguments are fine if they are linked sufficiently to be genuinely relevant; time suck arguments annoy me. Off-case arguments are fine if they are actually relevant to the round.

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I prefer actual communication and good speaking skills over rapid delivery. While I'm not an expert in K debate, I do understand the use of evidence, analysis, and snark. I would suggest that you only use the first two. While you may tell me how I "must vote," this technique annoys me and detracts from your argument. Just be a great communicator.

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

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

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

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching two cx teams at NSDA nationals in Kansas City in 2010, a cx team at NSDA nationals in Florida in 2018, and

2011 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Curt Lockwood & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2011 321A 2-Speaker 3rd Place (Bruce Williams & Caleb McIntosh - Caney Valley High School)
2012 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Jeremy Nave & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2013 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Alexis Brey & Alex Vore - Caney Valley High School)
2016 4A 4-Speaker 1st Place (Seth Cross, Zach Humble, Joe Adams, Isabella Provence - Fort Scott High School)
2018 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2019 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2020 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place and 2nd Place (closeout) (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia, Madi Toth, Dalton Womeldorf - Fort Scott High School)
2021 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Neil Gugnani, Shekhar Gugnani - Fort Scott High School)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

This is my 3rd year judging debate.

I am mostly a lay/ stock issues judge.

Talking quickly is okay, as long as you speak clearly and pronunciate. Please be polite to one another; Refrain from talking over each other during CX, it makes it even harder to hear you, because debate is virtual this year.

I will vote on stock issues, but explain your arguments and do not drop them!

Please tell me where to put your arguments on my flow.

I DO NOT like counter-plans or kritiks, I will not vote on them.

Most importantly have fun & good luck!!

Thank you!

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

Tabula Rosa

I've judged hundreds of rounds over 30+ years.

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

Topicality is an acceptable argument

I do not like speed - keep a conversational pace

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

Good Luck

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

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

Things I dislike:

Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.

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

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

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

Position on the following:

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

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

Email: dyates@usd313.org

I prefer speechdrop but do what you must.

Experience:

Head Coach @ Buhler High School

- Former Head Coach @ Nickerson HS 2019-2023

- Assistant Coach @ Salina South 2017-2018

- College: 4 Years Parli Debate, NFA-LD, and Limited Prep @ Kansas Wesleyan University from 2014-2018.

- High School: 4 Years Debate/Forensics at El Dorado HS (2010-2014). Did pretty much everything.

I am a huge advocate in you doing you. I will list my preferences, but know that I do find myself open to nearly any argument/strategy/style within reason. Please do not feel like my paradigm below should constrain you from doing arguments that you believe in.

• Be respectful and debate with integrity. Overt rudeness and exclusionary/offensive language and/or rhetoric will lose you my ballot.

• Substantive arguments and clear clash/organization is a must. I will not vote for unethical arguments (e.g. racism good). Please weigh arguments clearly and have a nice technical debate. Clean flows make happy ballots.

• Tech first, but not only tech. Immoral arguments will not win my ballot even if they are won 'on the flow'. Please provide a FW for weighing and evaluating the round. Don't make me have to decide why you won - you may or may not agree with my conclusions.

• I am receptive to framework and theory. I do not usually vote on procedural arguments on violations alone - extend and weigh your impacts on the procedural if you go for it in the 2R

• Kritikal arguments are good. I guarantee I like them more than you think I do. Explain your alt to me. RotB arguments take a second for my brain to process because I am a big ol' dummy, so I will want clear warrants for how and why the claim is true that my ballot does something.

• Alternative approaches (Performative Affs, K Affs) are okay but I am in all honesty less familiar with these approaches. Please explain to me the reasoning/justification for your methodology in plain-ish language if you go this route. Like the K, I like these arguments more than you might think. Please don't take my lack of exposure as a lack of willingness to vote on it.

• Please be clear on the flow. Also, please flow.

Policy Debate:

I am certified and currently teach/coach policy debate and have for the past 5 years. I participated in speech events when I was in school and love nerding out over good speeches and logic.

Speed:

Speaking fast just to get your evidence in is not high quality debate, but this is my opinion. Speaking well, flowing, and with confidence will get you much farther.

Flex Prep

No.

Arguments

Stock issues should all be addressed and upheld.

Each negative position tests the validity of the affirmative. Don’t drop an argument. Even if you feel like you answered it before, always answer it in the ending AR.

Topicality: Don’t rely on it. Justify the impact of topicality

Your argument doesn’t directly influence your speaker points - This is based on how well you convey your augment and confidence in speech.

Theory: While theory is fine, I would much rather see a debate on logic and advantages of policy.

CP: Fine, but still must prove why CP and Aff plan cannot coexist and why your plan has am adv over neg and how.

I do not take points off for speed; however, I do take points off for a lack of clarity. A speech impediment or obvious pre-existing condition will also not count against a debater.