Savannah Bonilla

pronouns: she/her

Be kind to your opponents!! Yall are here to debate not perpetuate a culture of hostility :)

Email Chain - savannahgrace2302@gmail.com

Experience: 4 years of high school policy with Salina South, currently doing LD and NPDA at Kansas Wesleyan University (2022 PKD Parli Champ ;)) and assistant coaching for Salina South.

I am a mom, and a student on top of being a part of this activity, so this early in the year prob don't assume I am as deep in the literature of this topic as some.

There are some things you should slow down for me. I am gonna flow the speech and not the doc, if you have a really dense block that you fly through as fast as you can, I'm gonna miss some of it.

Your 2AR / 2NR should write the ballot for me. I appreciate impact calculus, I appreciate clear analysis in analyzing arguments. The debate shouldn't be a block reading contest, I want to see more analysis and refutation. For the love of god engage with the material that you are reading.

Framework or K Aff: If I'm your judge in a clash debate, both teams are going to be unhappy. I'll try my best to evaluate both args as fairly as possible. Rounds that I have seen on the question put me at 50/50.

I think debate is a game, but, I am not a fan of judge adaptation, I think you should run what you want, and I will do my best to follow. Big theory debates are going to be frustrating for me to work out, and I will be less confident in my decision. Don't assume I am going to be familiar with every concept that you bring up, if I look like Im not getting it, im prob not.

I tend to be tech>truth, though I hold a lot of value in debating truth and have a low threshold for takeouts of low truth arguments. I don't feel as though I am as 'tech' as some of my peers, it doesn't mean I can't follow, but I might not be as inclined to make my decision here.

I will probably make a decision rather quickly. It doesn't mean that I am not paying attention or evaluating your arguments, I usually just don't need a long time to sort things out. I'm probably going to give you a pretty short and sweet RFD.

I don't think I'm hard to read, if I think your argument is bad, you'll probably see that on my face.

Be nice to one another in the round.

Will I listen to a K? Sure. I have voted here before but you are going to need to do some work.

"I am a K team - all I want to do is read the K, all of the K's, both sides, K-it-up, should I pref you?" Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I will happily listen to your K but it's safe to assume I am not read up on your specific k lit. If it looks like I am not jiving with your K, paint me a picture.

Disads and Counterplans? yes, please

Do you need to shake my hand? No thank you, knucks will suffice :)

Can we go fast? Sure.

SY23-24

This is my 8th year judging Debate and 9th judging Forensics

Debate: Mostly Policy

I judge as I would in a courtroom deciding whether or not someone should be innocent or guilty. I am going to listen to both sides, see how well you are able to ask & answer questions, & ultimately prove your case. I am going to wait for someone to CONVINCE me beyond a reasonable doubt that I should vote your side.

Sometimes my decision may come down to how comfortable you are in your knowledge of the topic, &how it's delivered. Do you have confidence? How prepared were you? Do you only talk about how wrong the other team is & why they shouldn't win? I want to know whyYOU should win. When you walk in, I will assume you know the rules, so I just want to hear a good, lively debate that stays on topic.

Forensics:

I received 1st at State every year I was in Forensics in high school, so it means a lot to me.

I look for confidence, proper enunciation, animation, voicing, originality &preparedness. I expect appropriate dress, as it is often distracting & interrupts decorum. You need to look professional while representing your school.

Your excitement & commitment will come through in your performance.

Melanie Davis

I am a 4th year debater, Tab judge, ask me if you don't know what that is. I go with any argument, but don't usually vote on kritiks and topicality unless there is obvious abuse in the round.

I debated in high school and began judging while I was in college. I believe the purpose of the debate is active learning and building critical thinking skills. I am a stock issue voter; I am open to being told what debaters find salient in a round and how I should vote. I am also a flow judge, so I like being told how/where to flow. Road mapping is so important to me, that I am fine with them being off time. With that done, and good tagging/signposting, speed is not a problem. If it compromises your ability to read fluently or speak articulately, slow down. The cards do not speak for the debater- the debater speaks for the card (provide summaries or explain relevance). That being said, I am open to Ks and turns. I do not like counterplans, as I think they are a kind of a debate hack. Policy debate is about policy- real world problems, real world solutions, real world consequences. Impact calc and solvency args are important for both teams. NEG teams, I do not care how generic your disad is if you can make a good argument for your link. AFF teams, inherency, topicality and a thorough understanding of your own plan are musts. I like speakers to fill time and take advantage of cross-examinations for clarification purposes. These things ensure a good CLEAN debate (with lots of clash).. because courtesy/professionalism matters! My email address is elizahemmer@gmail.com

Tabula rasa (blank slate) and policy maker

I am pretty traditional. I like debates about stock issues. I do not like critiks at all. I also dislike counterplans, but would consider a good one. I like a clearly laid-out A1 where the speaker actually tries to present the case into the camera. Organization is also important. I give weight to how well cross examination is handled. I typically consider running generic DAs as a waste of time for the negative.

Hi! My name is Gaby (she/her), and I'm a student at Northwestern University. I debated in high school and have judged a couple times since then.

When judging, the 5 stock issues are usually pretty important to me. Having said that, I don't like people running something like topicality just for the sake of running it.

In general, you should be a good speaker. You should be able to speak clearly, explain your arguments well, and not talk in a monotone. Keeping your arguments organized and giving brief off-time roadmaps is also very helpful.

The quality of an argument is pretty important to me, so make sure you know what you're talking about. If you're making a significant claim, you should definitely be able to back it up with evidence. Making good arguments and being logical is more important to me than just being able to 'speak pretty.' I also typically try to weigh the arguments when making my final decision, so keep that in mind.

Also!! Remember to be respectful to opponents and judges, and have fun!

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.