Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and James Taylor (JT).

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Instructor for Harbinger Debate, Shanghai doing PF.

Current Position: 2L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. Factors which make an argument more persuasive to me include: concessions, examples, correct application of key terms from your scholarship, credibility of source authors, internal consistency of the argument, explanatory power, and how the argument fits into other strategic choices the debater has made. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is also very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

I will only write a ballot for tacky or frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. I want to write ballots which engage with a question of actual SUBSTANCE. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it. No category of argument is exempt from this rule.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. There should be a moment where I am able to see how the strategies interact and where the disagreements are. If the negative approach is never contextualized to some actual dispute occurring in the round, I will be sympathetic to a lot of standard affirmative arguments.

I prefer DEPTH over breadth in almost all cases. In my thesis above I list the kinds of things which constitute depth.

Fairness and education are not real impacts until they are explained. Fairness is only an impact in relation to a particular kind of debate, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a particular role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. If you do not ELABORATE ON PROCEDURAL IMPACTS/TURNS THEREOF then don't be surprised if they aren't enough.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. I CANNOT BE RAZZLE-DAZZLED into voting for incoherent nonsense. High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I love kritik debating because of the radicalism, not the obscurantism. If you have depth, like the thesis above describes, this will not be a problem for you.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

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 debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

Debate is a competitive, educational activity that supports speech, argumentation and research skills. I expect you to address stock issues and have clear, well-connected and relevant off case arguments. I will vote primarily on the quality of evidence and argumentation and secondarily on the speech skills displayed. Whatever arguments you run, be organized on the flow, be clear on your arguments, and be persuasive in your speaking.

I'm between a flow and a lay judge. I can follow arguments very well, and typically try to flow rounds. I will struggle somewhat with high-speed talking, but as long as I'm provided evidence I can manage. Composure and logic will help convince me in rounds, however, it is not the deciding factor for me. I am mainly a stock issues judge, but I am able to understand things as complicated as a K (Theory). The burden will be on the AFF to prove that they will solve completely, and if that is disproved then NEG will win. Although, the NEG will have to do a substantial job of demonstrating how the AFF doesn't solve.

Washburn Rural High School '20 (barely debated)

University of Kansas '24 (not debating)

Live, Laugh, email chain: medrano0305@gmail.com

The odds are high that I had to look up this year's resolution the morning of the tournament because I do not frequently judge debate, so I would highly appreciate context and explanation behind arguments so that I can judge fairly. This is especially relevant if you are running Ks or counterplans.

Things that are good: Being nice, slow debate (I was a forensics kid so I appreciate speaking skills), having fun

Things that are bad: Stealing prep, being weird and tricky, clipping cards, being obnoxious during CX

Debate is a fantastic and cool activity so please just try to be decent human beings and I am sure we will all be fine.

I have judged HS debate here in Kansas for the last 3 years. I also debated for one year in college.

I don't mind a fast debate, as I am a fast talker, but don't go at breakneck speed. Remember, I haven't heard your argument before.

I don't plan to time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

I am very well-read, open-minded, heavily involved in politics, and graduated at the top of all my classes. I have both an undergraduate and a master's degree and have done doctoral level work.

Judging Style: I am a public speaker for a living, so I tend to make many remarks on your ability to annunciate and speak clearly with confidence. I put a high value on being respectful to your opponents and I watch your body language. But I don't take well to just charisma with no substance. Be a good speaker AND make a compelling and smart/logical argument.

Arguments:

I'm generally most interested in hearing solvency and impact (particularly in this year's topic). Disadvantages are also particularly important to me and I want to see good clash!

Careful with topicality arguments- I don't like when they dissolve into nit picky arguments. Make it a silver bullet (i.e. if it's made it impossible to rebut) - otherwise, don't argue topicality.

Make clear, organized and compelling arguments as to why you should win. It's that simple - but in my experience, not all competitors get that.

macp@usd383.org

I debated for 4 years in Spring Hill High School in Spring Hill, KS. Now a coach for Manhattan HS (2017-Present)

Top Level: I am definitely a policymaker and will vote for the side/scenario that does the most good while causing the least amount of harm. My view of Policy maker does leave room for in-round impacts. Impact calc in the rebuttals will go a long way with me. An overview is always appreciated. I, like many judges, can get lost in high-speed rounds. Don't just assume I know things or will do any work for you. I default to tech over truth but don't push it. If your evidence is bad, I can't vote on it. I can't pretend like Russia didn't invade The Ukraine.

Speed: I'll keep up alright in higher speed rounds, but always run the risk of getting lost. I'll flow off of the speech doc, but I need slow and clear analytics. Doing your job breaking down the round in the 2NR/AR benefits me.

Kritiks: I am relatively comfortable with the basics of the K, but my lit knowledge base is quite low. I am not receptive to Kritiks of Rhetoric if you can't give me a clear link to the AFF. Don't just say "their security rhetoric is problematic" if you can't highlight that rhetoric for me.

K-AFFs: I'll vote for a K-AFF, but you'll have to do enough work to prove that the ballot of a random Debate judge matters to your aff. A strong understanding of how the debate ecosystem functions will help you here. There are opportunities for a Perf Con debate that I haven't been seeing with enough teams.

Identity-centric Kritiks: Don't use black and brown narratives as just a route to the ballot. Cheapening these narratives because you know you can beat a policy team causes real-world harm. Seeing that you are carrying your advocacy in and out of the round that I am watching matters to me.

Topicality: Topicality violations have to be generally pretty blatant for me. There are fairly standard responses an Aff can make that will generally sway me on Topicality. If the Aff doesn't do some simple work, then I am forced to vote Neg. I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate the standards in a way to determine which interpretation best upholds an equitable debate experience. I have a hard time voting for a potential for abuse. In round abuse (like the aff linking out of everything) will weigh more heavily on my ballot.

Counter plans: I'll listen to a good counter-plan debate, but I have a hard time voting for a Consult CP. They are messy debates.

Politics DA's: I'll evaluate a politics DA, but I always want some great uniqueness evidence and a strong link. Many politics DA's I have been seeing lack the latter. Generic Politics DA answers will often win me over. I don't love the Politics DA

Don't be an awful person. I'll vote you down. Keeping this activity healthy for all students is important to me.

Please feel free to ask me questions. You all knowing my preferences benefit me just as much as it benefits you all. Don't be afraid to ask for additional feedback. If I have time, I'll chat with you :)

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.

Current Assistant Coach: Lansing HS

Former Head Coach: Thomas More Prep Marion Jr/Sr HS, Bonner Springs HS

High School Policy: 4 Years - Champs

EMAIL CHAIN - kelli.henderson@usd469.net (yes, I would like to be included on it)

Speed - I’m flexible. I prefer to be able to understand you and have clarity with your words. Make that happen for whatever that looks like for you. If I can’t understand you or follow, it will be obvious that I’m zoning out. I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you choose to say it. Make it count.

Preferences - I’m a fan of line by line. Tell me where to put it on the flow and tell me why it matters. I like Impact Calc. I typically default to policy maker and like stock issues if no one is directing me how to vote. I like to see direct clash, I believe that quality evidence matters, and having a cohesive and clear vision for the round is a plus.

All in all I try to keep an open mind to the arguments being made as long as they are not blatantly false/illogical. I want you to debate how you know how to debate I do not want an altered version based off of what you think I want to hear.

Some Specific Argument Notes:

If you do not make clear your position and why I should vote a particular way, I will more than likely default to policy maker.

Case: I love a good case debate! Be sure to have smart analysis of what is being presented in the round. Do not overlook plan.

Topicality: I like topicality and believe it is an under used tool. I want standards/voters. Do not run T just for the sake of running T. I want it to be logical and well constructed.

Disads: I value a strong link. Impact Calc. is important. If running something along the lines like Nuc War, it had better be strong and well constructed for me to consider it.

CPs: They’re not my favorite. I prefer specific solvency over generic CPs. You can still win a CP debate but please make sure it is truly more beneficial.

Kritiks: I enjoy philosophy but it needs to actually make sense. Explain the logic of the K to me if you want to win it. If you are not able to clearly explain your literature, do not go for it.

Theory: You must be able to thoroughly articulate why Theory matters and what the actual impact is. I will listen to it. I will weigh it accordingly. Not my favorite.

Things that I do NOT like or will not tolerate:

Being disrespectful - Your words matter. Use them wisely, properly, and be in good taste.

Abusing prep/flash times - be honorable and courteous.

Falsifying evidence - just don’t.

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.