I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

Email: bcunningham7373@gmail.com

In addition to doing debate all four years in high school, I'm currently on my fourth year of coaching it. I'm open to anything really, especially if you're able to articulate your points well. That being said, I'm not fantastic with K's. I'm not saying you can't run them, just do so at your own peril. It is greatly appreciated if you explain them. As for speed, you can go fast so long as your clear (especially if I have access to your evidence).

I'm a big fan of T and on case, but like I said, open to anything. I'll also pay close attention to any framing arguments made. I vote on stock issues, that includes things like T and Inherency. A more skilled, more eloquent aff team will lose if they drop or neglect something like that.

Above all else, I love good clash and a friendly, educational debate.

Don't be a jerk (I used to have a different word here, but tabroom has since smited me for my hubris), I will vote you down on it.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Michele Gerber Silver Lake KS

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes. Number of years 2

2) Did you debate in college? No

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

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

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: Silver Lake Invitational

Judging Criteria:

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

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 did POI.

I debated for four years at Topeka Seaman HS (2010-2014). I'm a leftist hippie that has spent the last 5 years in the Navy, and am now an Interdisciplinary Computing major at KU, with a focus on physics. I am not debating in college.

I would like to be on an email chain if there is one: moserrj@ku.edu. I've also used a SpeechDrop in the past. I will not flow off of the document, but will read the evidence in case I miss something.

When I debated, I debated on what was considered a lay circuit, and never traveled out of the state. While I generally know how to flow and understand debate concepts, the combination of the large timeframe since I actively competed and the circuit in which I competed means you would be more successful if you slow down and explain your arguments more than usual, as it's been a bit since I have really thought about debate.

I spend a decent amount of my time around a person who is active in both coaching high school debate and debating in college, which means despite not always wanting to hear about debate, I hear a lot about debate and arguments nonetheless, and therefore am not as out of it as the above may make it seem.

I would rate myself a 6/10 on the speed scale and prefer emphasis and inflection vice a cold monotone speed read. Just reading cards at me, with no discernable purpose, explanation, or intonation is not a pathway to my ballot. While I can probably read the card to understand its purpose, I would rather you explain that purpose either in a tagline or underview, and extend the evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact throughout your later speeches. I am of the opinion that debate should be about constructing well-founded arguments and disassembling lesser ones, not simply attempting to allegedly spew most of the words to a higher volume of "cards" than the opposing team and asking the judge to read all of them and perform the analysis for you.

I think that the affirmative team should defend hypothetical government action that beneficially shifts from the status quo. I think the negative team must prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea.

I am not a good judge for the K, or hyper-technical debates like counterplan competition. These are something I have very little, to no experience with. I have very little experience with international relations, with the exception of the topics I debated on, so I would prefer if your arguments relied less on debate jargon/shorthand/abbreviations that are not commonly used in the real world because I am unlikely to understand it. I did meet NATO once in the navy though.

I would prefer impacts that are more real world. While I understand the need to have endless extinction scenarios, I prefer debate when we talk about the real world implications of policies. However, I understand that this topic probably prevents those types of discussions. I will not vote on arguments that argue that death is good, that going to war would be good, or that dropping nuclear bombs would be good. If you run a K or weird theory argument, that is fine, you just need to make sure that you have shown that you leave ground for Aff teams to exist and YOU MUST PROVE A NET BENEFIT TO THE PLAN be it solving their advantages, turning them, or whatever. A K without it's own solvency dies at the feat of a mitigated Aff. Prove it solves for something and I'll vote for it. e.g. if your cap K just says capitalism is bad and we should reject the Aff for a global worker revolt, you need to convince me that workers both can and will revolt globally to beat/steal the Aff's impacts, just like the Aff has to prove solvency for their impacts.

Just make it make sense and tell me why your arguments matter at the end of the round.

Community Judge (Male, Age 66)

1.) Did not debate in High School

2.) Did not debate in College but did get a BS.

3.) No elimination rounds on the topic.

4.) No preliminary rounds on the topic.

5.) Tournaments - DB8 at the Silver Lake Debate Invitational, FSSL at KSHSAA 4 Speaker Regionals.

6.) Judging Criteria:

I. Priorities - Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Approach - Skills emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating")

III. Speed - Moderate contest rate, faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans - Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the the negative approach.

V. Topicality - Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

VI. Generic disadvantages - Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

Scott W. Sexton

Silver Lake, Kansas

1- Did I debate in High School? Yes, 3 years experience.

2- Did I debate in College? No.

3- How many elimination rounds have I judged on this topic? None that I know of.

4- How many preliminary rounds have I judged on this topic? Three.

4- List of tournaments I've judged at this year. Silver Lake, HS.

5-

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

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

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

-Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”) and Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

-No preference regarding speed. Clarity of speech and thought are more important.

Counterplans are:

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

Topicality is:

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

I find generic disadvantages:

-Generally acceptable.

VII. I find kritiks:

-Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Ryan Tarner

Debated 4 years at Silver Lake High School

I judged 3 rounds at the Silver Lake Home Invitational Tournament earlier this year and I judged at Regionals this year.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me. Who does the better job at debating, stocker issues emphasis, and policy maker emphasis prescribe my approach to judging. For speaking pace go at a pace that I can understand what you're saying so a moderate contest rate please. Counterplans are acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach. Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round. However sometimes with T the violation must be fairly blatant for me. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed. Finally I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.