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.

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.

Educational background:

Bachelor degree in rhetoric and communication with a focus on persuasive effectiveness (Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS)

Master degree in secondary education with a focus in English language arts (Western Oregon University - Monmouth, OR)

Specialist degree in literacy leadership and assessment (Walden University - Minnepolis, MN)

Profession:

My background has a plethora of experiences in various fields. I teach all levels of high school ELA classes at Newton High School and am an assistant debate coach. Also, I've taught undergraduate composition and speech courses at a variety of local community colleges and currently serve as a consultant for graduate-level business communication coursework at Wichita State University and Alamaba A&M University.

Judging Preferences:

At heart, I am a 'flow' judge. I expect clear and respectful speaking that addresses stock issues and does not attack an individual debater or team. (Poke holes in the argument instead.) I am not a fan of counter plans since this tactic usually does not address Aff's presented arguments. Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. I prefer a moderate contest rate so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated. Please provide real-world arguments and if addressing topicality, be sure to pair it with other major issues addressed in the round.

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 am a Kansas HS assistant debate coach. I am a science teacher that values logic and scientific fact. My background is not in debate however, I have been coaching for 4 years. I have judged for high school debates for 36 years. I believe that most anything is debatable however some styles of argument work better for me than others. I am more of a CP/DA Case debate kind of judge. Speed of my flow is far lower than what I would call fast. Clear tags/authors and quicker on text is fine. Also please tell where things go and how they apply. I enjoy most debates but not a fan of T debates. If the aff is not topical run it. If the aff is center of the topic then do not run T. IF they are off topic, I am easily swayed on T. Theory debates are kinda like T for me. Rather not see it unless there is a legitimate violation. I do not penalize teams for style choices. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I need to be able to understand the words. If you speak for your partner during their speech or tell them what to say during their speech, you will lose. If you get up and take your laptop to your partner during their constructive or rebuttal speech and have them read what you wrote for them to say, you will lose.

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.

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!

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.

I tend to be a stock issue judge, but I also want solid policy.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans or K's but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them but please don't run one if you don't know how to do it well.

Speed doesn't bother me. If I can't keep up for some reason, I will let you know. Spreading as a tactic to avoid clash is not going to be in your best interest with me.

I have been a coach for 5 years.

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.

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.