Currently Coach in Korea, They mainly do parli and LD here, so I have been removed from the policy scene for almost a year now. However I do coach some one on the Korean national team.

derby debate coach 2 years 2018-2020

debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.

LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C. Case debate is import in proving your opponent cant access their V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even I will then look to evaluate the case.

PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text K's are a quick way to lose my ballot. I prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFL update: IF it looks like I am not looking at the computer while you are speaking I have two monitors, one to follow on and read ev, one to watch the debate.

T-aff should be topical, if neg goes T I feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they aren't topical they lose is not okay, explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.

K- I'm good with most K's however don't assume I know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if I don't understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense I probably wont vote on it.

CP- I'm good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS, However, I am open to hearing anything as long as you can defend it.

as far as theory goes I'm good with you making theory args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient for me to not vote on the argument.

condo- is really the only thing that I would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.

disads- I like more true scenarios. I'm okay and should be able to follow most disad story lines. parts of the disad that I value the most in order

link>unqi>IL>impact>

case- case is important, one important thing to not do is on solvency; try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die. Losing the solvency flow will lose you the round.

framing- if there is no framing analysis I default to impact calc. Just because you win the framing arg doesn't mean you win the round it means I weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.

last notes- I find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.

I'm pretty easy to please. I want to say I'm a pure Tabula Rasa judge, but as I've gotten older I have found that isn't true.

I boil down to this:

- I will listen to whatever you want to run. I may have never voted for a counterplan or kritik, but I absolutely will listen to them and consider them.

- I don't want stock issues ignored.

- I want to be told WHY I should vote for things.

- Genuinely, the only thing I do not want to hear is No New in 2. I'm a former 2N and the Negative Block is one of my favorite things. The speech is called a Constructive speech for a reason.

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

1.       Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

Debated in high school (early 1970s)

Frequent Debate judge

2.       I have judged 23 years of policy debate.

I have judged under 10 CX rounds this season.

3.       List any tournaments you have judged at this season:

Hutchinson

4.       Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Equal weight for stock issues, policy maker and speaking skills. This is a communication activity, after all.

5.  RATE OF DELIVERY 

Slow. Debate is a communication activity.

6.  QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS 

Prefer few but well developed arguments.

7.  COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES 

While it is a communications activity, issue resolution is important.

8.  TOPICALITY

T is relatively important. T args, though, MUST be structured properly.

9.  COUNTERPLANS

Don't like hearing them every round. States counterplan is old, used every year with a domestic topic. Avoid it.

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

I appreciate that you've read a book. I don't like book reports in debate. Avoid them.

13. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

I love DAs. But DAs must have specific links and brinks and clear NON-NUCLEAR impacts. Again, structure is critical. So, no, I'm not a fan of generics.

 14. CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Find arguments and stick with them. Avoid conditionals. 

15. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Yes, sometimes we have to go there. But there is no "book of rules" for debate. Back in the 1970s, you didn't present plan until 2AC. Yes, I'd accept that today, despite "theory" arguments to the contrary.

16.  Optional: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses, add those comments in the space below:

Call mine the "Grumpy Old Man" paradigm. I love structure. Don't make me work. The more you force me to work, the less you'll like the outcome.

I am real world judge who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will NOT weigh nuclear impacts. Debate remains a communication activity. If I can’t flow the argument because of speed, it does not exist. Watch me.

I will enforce KSHSAA Rule 52. Rudeness has no place in debate.

Stock issues/policymaker/communication skills are of equal importance to me. Don’t make me work. Please sign post and properly label arguments. Tell me where to flow arguments. “And” is not structure. “Observation 1 Inherency. A: “ etc. If you don’t tell me where to flow something, you may not like where I flow it.

And, no, I won't weigh "performance debate" rounds. Automatic loss for the team that starts it.

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

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.

Pronouns: he/his

stegman76@gmail.com

I used to coach at a 2A high school in Kansas. I'm a stock issue as well as 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; however, I hate T arguments that are just there to fill time.

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

Kritiks are something I'm not super comfortable judging well. I've only seen them run once or twice...by novices at the beginning of their debate career. I'm not opposed to them, but don't feel I could accurately gauge if a K is run well or not.

Don't just read evidence and leave it at that - analyze, analyze, analyze!

I prefer moderate contest speed. Not a super big fan of spreading.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

I am a queer woman in my 40s. My degrees are in Speech Communication, English, and Social Work Administration, Advocacy, and Policy. In my professional life, I have taught English, journalism, and reading at the high school level; Montessori at the elementary level and teacher education; and I worked as a mental health advocate and lobbyist for about a decade. 

I truly believe simply doing these events is courageous and sets you apart from every one else.

In debate, give me the decision criteria. In everything else, be informed before you make a claim and have distinct characterizations. 

Practice until you’re better than everyone else. ;)

I look for well articulated arguments and a demonstration of understanding. Anyone can get up and read evidence, so show me that you understand how that evidence proves the point you are trying to make. I prefer good analysis of a few arguments rather than a large array of arguments. (Don't spread!)

Not everything leads to war.

Be nice to each other.