I debated for three years in high school (a LONG time ago) in the late 80s. I judged for quite a few years then took a break for awhile and resumed judging the last 7 years consistently. There have been many changes that have evolved throughout the time, but I remain pretty traditional.

PET PEEVE: I hate the use of the term "card." As my wonderful debate coach insisted, you should not use the term "card" is not what you are relying upon it is evidence, support, substantiation, or anything similar. Debaters today haven't even made "cards" as we used to back in my day of debate. It is just sloppy speaking as with too many acronyms.

To me, debate is about the affirmative making the prima facie case on all 5 of the stock issues (Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Workability & Solvency). Just like in a criminal case, the Negative only has to win one to create reasonable doubt. I do believe Topicality is a vital issue, and I will listen to the arguments, but I do not want to hear droning on and on about the impacts - get on with how the case isn't topical and move on.

Organized arguments are important to me and add to your ability to persuade.

I am unimpressed with tricky or non-traditional arguments. I like to see the basics performed well and at a high level.

As far as speed goes, I do not find it persuasive or convincing for individuals to speak in monotone voice as quickly as you can reading source after source. Don't speak faster than you can clearly enunciate and take time to explain your arguments and how the evidence you have "proves" the point you are trying to make. I also like when people listen to their opponent's evidence and find flaws, reasons why it doesn't support their case.

A few words about Cross Examinations - I find it offensive when debaters ask questions and then interrupt or talk over the person trying to answer. IF you want a "yes/no" response, learn to ask questions that elicit such responses. If the person drones on and on and on, then I think it is reasonable to raise a hand and say, I think you have answered may we move one? Or something respectful. Keep in mind that this is not argument. You cannot just rely on the questions raised here to carry through on into the speeches as they do not.

For this online forum - I do not want to be part of the email chain as I have enough to manage the two screens with zoom & tabroom open. If there becomes some dispute about the evidence/source, I will ask you to send it to me. I also do not want to wait forever if things are not going through. We did not routinely just have the other side hand over their case/evidence and learned to take our own notes and create arguments just fine. I have been in rounds wasting 30+ minutes just waiting for evidence to be received by the opponents. I like to keep it moving.

I use she/her pronouns.

I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.

Include me in the evidence sharing chain: osilverman@sacredheartknights.org

Fair debate:

I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.

Speed and Flowing:

I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.

Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.

Voting:

I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.

I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.

I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.

I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.

I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.

I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.

I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.

Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.

Hello there! My name is Nathan Weiss. I am a student in the professional pilot program at Kansas State University- Aerospace and Technology Campus.

I've watched a great number of debates and arguments, and also have written persuasive arguments myself on controversial topics in my college career, especially on complex political and social issues. I love to take what I've learned from my great teachers in both high school and college on effective persuasion and provide objective, constructive feedback to others.

As the observer of a debate, I'm always looking for which side argues their position best regardless of what their position is. Effective debaters can persuade a diverse audience through effective communication, strong use of rhetorical techniques, and a thorough awareness of their opposition's viewpoints.

There are five main factors I take into account when judging a debate:

1. Effective use of tone, inflection, and public speaking skills

- Debaters should use a tone which is impassioned and invested in the issue, but not inflammatory or disrespectful toward the opposing side

- Debaters should speak clearly, concisely, and at a good pace. They should also use adequate inflection to boost engagement with the audience.

2. Clear, concise claims and reasoning introduced at the beginning of constructive arguments

- Debaters should introduce their main points and reasoning for each point in a concise thesis statement before arguing. This helps the audience know your precise position on an issue and the core reasoning to back your position. The rest of the argument branches off of these core claims and reasoning.

3. Thorough awareness of opposing perspectives and shared warrants

- A good arguer should be prepared to refute and/or make concessions to the opposing view and be aware of warrants they have about their opposition. Looking for common ground that both you and the opposition can come to is a great method to build persuasion, and being able to understand why your opposition believes what they do is crucial to building a good argument.

(EX: Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have a shared warrant that the needs of the American people are important. Where they differ is in the policies they propose to attempt to help the American people).

4. Avoidance of logical fallacies

- Logical fallacies can cause the persuasive power of an argument to plummet as they are often easily disputed, illogical claims. Being aware of these fallacies and avoiding them as much as possible is crucial for effective debate.

(EX: The statements "Every American likes apple pie" or "You're not a real American if you vote for (candidate)!" are examples logical fallacies)

5. Reputable, non-partisan sources used as evidence for claims

- Whether you choose your evidence carefully or not can make or break an argument since certain sources can have a great level of bias to them. Reputable sources from objectively-focused organizations with no stated or implied agenda are the best to use in a policy debate.

(EX: A source like Breitbart News or CNN may be less persuasive than a source like Reuters or the Bipartisan Policy Center since there is a high level of bias to them. A source for objective data from a blog post may be less persuasive than from a peer-reviewed journal since there is not much established credibility)

Overall, I am looking for the side that follows these criteria the best and, most importantly, persuades me to vote for their proposal over the other side's proposal. I will always provide thorough and constructive feedback to each team to hopefully help you improve upon your debate skills for the future.

I look forward to hearing your arguments soon! Always remember to have fun and keep in mind that this is a learning experience; no matter who wins, you are practicing to become great orators and arguers which is beneficial not only in the debate hall, but also in your everyday lives and academic and professional careers.