For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

I value technical skill in your speaking involving your clarity, voice inflection, and overall presence. I do not like speeding in your speeches and would prefer your words to clearly speak for themselves. As for your debate style, I really appreciate a clear line of reasoning and organization. I find listening to multiple different strings of thought in one speech confusing and would much rather you speak towards one purposeful stance. Just remember you are persuading me and not fighting your opponent. While I appreciate some push back, a calm, organized debate is always better in my opinion.

Just remember to have fun and that this is all a learning experience. I believe all students have potential to be great speakers and self advocates. Good luck!

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

Hello! My name is Evan Kirksey and I have been actively involved in forensics for 9 years now, with high school, collegiate, and now coaching experience. I am also a recent Speech Communication and Theatre Education graduate, and am now a coach at The University of Central Missouri, so I am well versed in debate jargon. I can keep up with most arguments easily. However, I appreciate rounds that aren't entirely focused on jargon and tech. I like well developed arguments, clash, and rationale. If you just speed and spread through the round without actually explaining your arguments, you likely won't win my ballot. Be clear and concise about where you are on the flow, your responses, etc. Persuasion needs to play a role in your performance as a debater, or I will not be compelled to vote for you.

I am both a speech and debate coach, who primarily works with speech events and IPDA style debate.

Speech Events:

In interp, I focus on technical ability but also your understanding of the emotions in the piece. I want to see sincere displays of emotional depth that appropriately connect with the overall theme.

In public address and platform speaking events, I value organization and clarity in your speech. I am a fan of visual paragraphing provided it is done well--your movement should look natural and enhance the presentation not distract. INFO should be well rehearsed with their visual integration, but I understand that accidents may happen due to travel/stands.

ALL Debate Events:

Above all, I value good sportspersonship! I will not tolerate rude behavior towards opponents because we are here to clash ideas, not clash each other. I am opposed to the practice of spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. I typically evaluate rounds based on the following criteria (in order): validity and logic of argument, organization of points, round decorum, and speaking presence.

Jefferson City HS Debater 2018-2021

Current Jefferson City HS Assistant Debate Coach

(they/them)

mostly familiar with policy and extemp (typical debater behavior ik), but i know enough about all debates

sorry if the ballot is overly critical, i just care about this activity.

stuff thats underlined are my hard rules, if you break them then regardless of the flow the ballot is sealed against you

Policy:

General stuff-

framework is the deciding variable typically

dont read more than 4 off in the 1nc unless you plan on kicking

dont turn the debate into big stick mpx back and forth, i dont buy them and theyre bad debate.

i do not buy any arguments that say death/harm is a good thing

ptx disads are usually pretty decent but your ev has to be no older than a few months

federalism disads are just not true lol

typically all dropped arguments in the constructives are voter issues for rebuttals

on the topic of voters, your 2nrs and 2ars should have at least a few

if you're funny i'll usually give you higher speaks

respect pronouns and behave appropriately

if i see you on your phone outside of timing i will immediately vote against you

please make the round fun, do whatever it takes to do that, just don't make the round stressful/tense because nothing is worse than an awkward and angry debate round

CPs/Ks-

please know your status before you run it (unconditional, conditional, dispositional)

if you dont specify i assume its uncondo and if you kick out ill consider it dropped

i usually don't care if a cp or k is condo or uncondo, but i will refuse to listen to dispositional ks/cps

p.s. if you refer to conditionality or unconditionality as "condy" or "uncondy" i will vote against you (jk)

dont read ks for identities you don't belong to, unless you have serious reason to read it

i dont want to hear any performances with any slurs, even if you can say it

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERY PART OF THE K DO NOT READ IT

intrinsic/severance perms are not bad, but if you read intrinsic/severance perm bad theory i'll go with it

if the aff does not perm thats ok, but if the aff does perm and the neg doesnt respond at all, i vote aff

PIC/PIKs aren't bad they are literally meant to test the aff calm down but don't expect special treatment

p.s. if you read a PIC/PIK dont read solvency LOL

CPs do not get fiat and cannot be topical, there is no amount of theory that will change my mind

(all of this applies to k affs as well)

T-

run it correctly or i dont flow it

severance IS an acceptable response to extra T, but severance to respond to oncase or disads becomes an instant L for the aff/CP

i will literally never buy effects T but you can certainly try!

unless the plan is blatantly nontopical (i.e. anything other than T sub, T should, etc.), do not carry T past the 2NC

however T should be carried to the 2NR if it's a K aff or explicitly nontopical

t sub, if based on numbers (i.e. substantial must be at least 80%) are BAD ARGUMENTS!

Theory-

fiat is never ever ever a voter issue- i dont believe it should be a thing but i respect that the aff has it.

you especially cannot fiat the supreme court or international coalitions

speed is fine but dont spread tags

speed is fine if you can actually spread, if you can't don't bother trying.

you will disclose the aff to everyone in round before the 1ac starts or i will seal my ballot before the 1ac finishes.

any evidence you send will either be in individual cards or as your case as you read it, no briefs

i dont care if you use bad language just dont say any slurs, even if you are apart of the group that can say them.

Aff-

k affs are usually always bad lol cope

SCOTUS affs do NOT get fiat. it is the affs burden to prove the plan will get the ruling

SCOTUS affs also need test cases given by the 2ac or its immediate L for the aff team

(for the 23-24 topic) the plan must have explicit funding

1ars are the hardest speech so ill count any dropped arguments as not important to the aff and not as reasons to vote for neg

no new args in or past the 1ar but new evidence is ok

Neg-

please read a disad with any cps or ks. read at least one disad in general

please split your neg block, its so unfair to the aff if you do not

do not take prep before the 1nc that shows me you are not prepared

Cross-

i do not flow cross but oftentimes cross can be the most important part of the round

everything that is said in cross is binding

if you ask clarifying questions that tells me you do not flow, unless the opponents say something that you want to exploit

i do not like "are you aware" questions

i usually don't mind open cross but theres some rules you need to follow: if you are the one being asked questions, make sure your partner doesnt answer everything for you. only ONE person may ask cross questions even with open cross, if you decide to run a K then cross instantly becomes closed.

any questions, find wherever JC is sitting and ask me, or email me

I competed in Colorado at Fort Morgan High School in all three genres so I am familiar with the foundation of most events. I assist and judge whenever needed at FMHS and currently compete on the Forensics team at Hastings College.

Feel free to contact me. My email is Citlalyqu@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________

General:

• Be respectful and kind to each other.
• Provide content warnings when needed before you begin speaking if necessary
• Argument/thesis must be clear and supported with evidence
• I want to know the significance of your topic in your intro
• Have fun and speak on things that YOU care about and are passionate about

Speech/Interp:

• As I stated, please provide a content warning on the video, board, before you speak, etc if necessary
• You could have the most beautiful voice and perfect blocking in the entire world, but if there isn't a clear argument/thesis in the intro unfortunately I will mark you down
• Commit to what you are saying. This is your chance to use 8-10 minutes to speak out on something meaningful to you, leave me with an impact.

Debate:

• If you spread I will likely mark you down. I want to understand your argument and feeding me with an overload of information at a fast rate does not make you good at debate.
• Debate is an act of persuasion. Convince me why you're right by giving me evidence and good quality arguments. Quality > Quantity.
• Be respectful towards each other!

My Preferences:

• I love to see passion and that you truly believe in what you’re saying, but be respectful with your words and body language.

• While I understand your time constraints and the vast amount of information you have to communicate, if I cannot understand you because of speed, that will hurt you more in the long run.

• While organization and clear signposts are not the most important thing to me, it does help me understand how you are supporting your side. That being said, the content of your words is the most important thing to me.

• I do not disclose winners during the round. When I submit your scores, I will also provide feedback from my notes for you to consider.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. The side that presents and most effectively uses, analyzes, interprets, and refutes opposing evidence will be the winner.

In policy, I will judge primarily on the stock issues. These should be clear within the context of the debate. On topicality, I will specifically be looking at debatability and reasonability. However, if an argument is missed due to spreading, it will be considered a dropped argument.

In Public Forum, I judge heavily on impacts and argumentation, but will weigh uniqueness if it is brought up.

In LD, I am a proponent of the value debate.

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation. On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences: I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with a clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counter-plans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counter plans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in the 1AR if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around the argumentative agency. Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

no spreading! All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of the points and must watch the rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

I determine winners by their use of evidence, argumentation, presentation, and language skills. I do not like off-case arguments, and I want some clash. Debate is a speaking event, so I should be able to follow what you say. If I have to rely on documentation that you send me, then I will evaluate your case in my role as a composition instructor and I will still determine the winner according to the verbal arguments.

I do not disclose win/loss at the end.

NSDA Adjudicating Speech & Debate and Cultural Competence certified.

I have taught ELA at the high school and college level with an emphasis on writing for 15 years. 5 of those years have focused on persuasive writing. This is my first year to coach speech and debate.

I have the most experience with IPDA, LD, and BQ debates, but I have little or no experience with policy debates, Congress, World School, or other competitions that follow rules of order.

I average judging multiple rounds at 1 tournament a month.