Hi! I'm Jacinta, and I'm a 4th year debater. I don't have a ton of "likes/dislikes" as far as my judging goes. I'm open to anything (K's, T, CP's, etc.) but I will say I'm very big on running things CORRECTLY. Example: If you run T, I need all 4 parts. If it's not ran correctly I will toss it and explain why I did so in your comments. I'm a Game Theorist. Nothing is too "absurd" for me if you can very adequately convey (with evidence) the substantiveness of the argument. I do not default to the Aff. I vote based on quality of arguments, whatever side they may be on.

Take everything written in your comments as constructive criticism! I'm not mean, but I can be blunt (as most debaters are.) Good luck! 

Debate-

I did Debate for all four years of high school so I am comfortable with most types of arguments. My only rules are that you have to be able to explain your arguments well and don't run a bunch of arguments if you plan to drop half of them. Debate is ultimately just something fun so don't take it all that seriously.

DO CONGRESS

Kayla Benson

Head Coach @ Wichita Southeast High School (Go Buffs!)

Email: kaylab222@gmail.com (Post-Tournament Questions: kbenson@usd259.net – I check this more often during the week…)

Paradigm Last Updated: September 2024 (Pre-Washburn Rural)

General Information:

My philosophy towards debate is that it should be a fun, engaging activity that challenges both you and your competitors in an academic environment. As debaters, your role is to develop and present well-thought-out, strategic arguments that foster healthy and respectful debates between both teams. My role as the judge is to evaluate the arguments you present and determine which team has the better arguments. One important thing I've learned through coaching is that I'd much rather watch a debate where participants are genuinely engaged with the arguments they enjoy than see debaters adjust their strategy based on what they think I want. For me, the ideal debate is fun, educational, and thought-provoking. I have only three expectations for every round: 1. Be respectful 2. Defend strong, well-supported evidence 3. Provide direct clash between opposing arguments. If you can meet these criteria, then I am your judge.

Also, if you are curious… I wrote out my thoughts/views/attitudes to various aspects of debate in relation to Taylor Swift songs… here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qiwakMBwhjlniGxY0xe6Y88pko5mXs-KuH-BHhXakXE/edit?usp=sharing

Thoughts on Various Aspects of Debate:

1. Decision-Making Criteria

1. Argumentative Styles – I come from a traditional policy-maker background, often relying on the classic T, CP, and DA structure. However, I’ve coached and judged almost every style, from stock issues to high-flow kritikal debates. The most important aspect of any debate, in my view, is providing clear judge instruction and framing your arguments effectively in the 2NR and 2AR. My ideal RFD should reflect the language and key lines from your team's final rebuttal. Additionally, one common issue I see is debaters failing to explain why the arguments they're extending matter within the broader context of the round. Remember, it’s crucial to make the importance of your arguments in the round clear.

2. Tech vs. Truth – I find myself at a bit of a crossroads. In the competitive context, I generally prioritize Tech over Truth. Dropped arguments are like dropped eggs... or whatever I learned my Novice Year. However, given the rise of misinformation in the real world, I believe there are instances where Truth should take precedence—especially when debaters are presenting blatantly false information that could have broader implications outside the round. That said, 99% of the time, I do default to Tech over Truth in the round.

1. Operational Aspects

1. Spreading – Can you spread? Yes, if you do it properly. There are three components I feel debaters are currently lacking: 1.Clarity – You still need to have clear diction in your words. 2. Volume – Find a balance of being loud enough for me to hear you, but I don’t want to feel like I’m being screamed at. 3. Varying Speed – When spreading, you should have an Analytic Speed (slowest), Tag Speed (middle), Body of Evidence Speed (fastest). Also, if this is my first time listening to you spread (or if I haven’t judged you in a while), start slow and then build, so I can adapt to your speed.

2. CX – I am okay with Open CX if both teams agree to it. However, a debate team has two people, so BOTH debaters need to be asking/answering questions. If I feel like you aren’t answering questions OR if I feel like you won’t let your partner answer questions, I will dock speaker points.

3. Prep Time – Prep time starts as soon as the timer goes off after CX or the speech ends (I usually accept a 10-15 second grace period to set a timer, but no one should be prepping during this time). Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. Prep time does not include deleting analytics or moving evidence. I won’t count sending the doc as part of prep time unless I feel like you are stealing prep or if it is taking an abnormally long time. While teams are sending the speech doc, everyone else should have their hands off their computers. If I have to tell you to stop stealing prep, I will dock points.

4. Sign-Posting – Please indicate when you are switching cards or moving from a card to analytics. There are two things that should indicate to me that you’ve moved on: 1. Having a vocal indication (And, Next, 1, A, etc.) 2. A change in vocal speed (see Spreading).

5. Extending Arguments – Notice, I said extending arguments, not extending authors. If you say the phrase “Extend Benson 24” with no explanation as to what that evidence says and how it applies to the round, I will not flow that extension. I will also probably dock some speaker points because that feels like lazy debating to me.

1. Specific Arguments

1. Case Debate – When debating the case, I appreciate when the negative presents a combination of both offensive and defensive arguments. I feel like on-case arguments are often underutilized in debates and can be used effectively in conjunction with your off-case arguments.

2. Topicality vs. Policy Affs – Need all parts (Interpretation, Violation, Standards, and Voters). Needs to be all five minutes of the 2NR. I prefer if the negative team provides a list of topical affirmatives that solve the advantages. - IPR Specific: I am not a huge fan of Subset T... I have yet to be provided with an instance of Ground Loss or a Case List that is more than 3 Affs.

3. Topicality vs. K Affs – Fairness is an internal link. A strong TVA has evidence – read a TVA.

4. Disadvantages – This is probably my bread and butter. When you are defending a disadvantage, I like when there is a clear explanation of how the DA outweighs and turns the case, and case-specific links (having multiple links is also a good thing for me). When you are arguing against a disadvantage, I like when you explain how the aff outweighs and turns the DA, and provide clear/specific link turns. Both teams need to engage in impact comparisons.

5. Counterplans – I’m going to be honest, I am not a fan of counterplans that have 20 billion planks and should really be three different counterplans but are mashed into one. Also, not a fan of when teams read multiple planks with the strategy of extending the plank/solvency that the affirmative inevitably drops (this is the 2A side of me). To win a CP, you need to explain 1. How the CP solves the aff and 2. The net benefit of the CP – these two aspects need to create a clear story as to how the counterplan functions.

6. Ks on the Negative – Have an alt, explain how it solves. Have a clear link – I am not a fan of links of omission (but can be convinced). Have some framework – how do you want me to evaluate the context of the round? Explain/defend your literature in a way that makes sense to how you want me to evaluate the debate. Also, if you want me to judge-kick the alt, you need to explain the rationale and conditions under which you want me to kick the alt.

7. K Affs – You need two things: 1. An advocacy statement (or something similar) 2. A relation to the topic (part of the K aff needs to be about IPR...).

8. Theory – On theory arguments, I am most persuaded when you can provide a clear example of proven in-round abuse. Also, if you are going to spread through your theory blocks with no clear signpost or speed change AND delete it from the speech doc, don’t be surprised if I don’t evaluate it. Condo: You can read it… I generally think that some conditional advocacies are okay (like three? Each plank on a multi-plank counterplan counts as a conditional advocacy in my eyes). If you want me to vote on it, it must be all five minutes of the 2AR.

4. Speaker Points:

1. Everyone starts at a 28.5.

1. Increase by: Speaking clearly, having strong/complete arguments, engaging in clash, being creative, extending warrants/arguments, talking about Taylor Swift.

2. Decrease by: Not speaking clearly, not completing arguments, ignoring judge instruction, being rude/aggressive, extending authors, stealing prep, making digs at Taylor Swift.

Firstly as a person who has been a highschool competitor, and now on a college team and a coach of this activity I would hope I know the basics, like for example what the stock issues are, and framework, amongst other things so while in round to try to not waste time you do not need to explain these or just most basics of debate.

Am I a policy maker or a stock issues judge? Hmm well for me I'd rather make it a policy issues round and weigh it apon impact calculation but if it's not provided I will default to stock issues.

When it comes to being neg in a round I love off case arguments including multiple DA's and i feel that just one or two will not win you a round. But on the other hand of that I'm not a fan or k's, unless you are really good at explaining why they work in the round and why I should actually care just avoid them like the plague

Please please please do not spread, I do not care how fast you read I can understand most paces and can keep up normally pretty well on the flow, but the moment you start spreading you almost basically are losing round, I simply just can't understand you and it makes the whole round critically less entertaining.

Overall just make this a fun time for everyone, there is no reason to be rude or nasty to others. Just make this a positive and educational experience it's why we are all here

Experience: Head coach for 8 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT, I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with analysis.

Paradigm: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how YOU would like me to weigh the round.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

Coach for Southeast high school.

put me on the email chain Jaceyg957@gmail.com

if you have questions on anything both before or after the round don't hesitate to ask!

General

Debate your own style I've done it all from stock issues to rounds with 11+ off. Do what you do best and be good at it! I don't have a preference when it comes to style, delivery, or subject matter but what I do have is a preference for teams who judge instruct, by the end of the debate I shouldn't have to question what the story of either side is. Debate is multifaceted, teams that can utilize 1 research 2 strategy 3 storytelling the best will win after all "debates a game".

Tech>Truth

T- Neutral on the whole C/I vs reasonability thing. Unless I'm on a panel with a lay judge then I believe that T needs to be the entirety of the 2nr (some exceptions but not many) in round abuse isn't needed model making is valid especially early on in the season.

CP- I'm 1 of like 5 judges that love condo debates and will hear both teams out. All counterplans are valid until proven otherwise it is not my job to bring preconceived notions to the round if you can convince me to vote on something as wild as consult cp's than by all means go for it.

DA-Links are absolutely everything. I am of the thought that arguments can be zero'd out and will vote on for example presumption if the neg proves no solvency I will just as swiftly vote against a disad that is shut down with sufficient defense. Impact calc needs to be deeper than screaming extinction at me.

Side note I'm down to listen to any and every version of politics.

K-I could write a whole textbook on my thoughts of K's but to keep it short and sweet K's are a much-needed part of debate on both sides, to what extent is up to you to decide in round. run them however you want I am the judge who will listen to everything from cap good to tear down the system irl. Debate should be a safe space to clash any and every idea as long as it doesn't have a direct material harm on anyone in or out of the round. I'm well read in Cap Abolition, and Setcol. I'm familiar with anti-blackness, gender/queer, and postmodern k's like Baudrillard but I'm not a professional on your specific reading so no harm in overexplaining just don't give me an annoyingly long overview explain the premise in debate.

Good luck and may the odds be in your favor!

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

Run whatever you want, just don't be awful. I'll vote you down for racism/homophobia/etc.

T- I'll only vote on if i really have to.

CPs- Do whatever, honestly. I hardly ever run anything but states. I dislike HATEPICs.

DAs- Fine with generic DAs if you can explain them well enough. Specific DAs are always better.

Ks- If you can't explain your K, don't run it. As long as you're clear on how the aff links in, it should be fine.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear

Impact calc would be cool. Tell me why I should vote for you. Good luck

Ok, I'll keep this short and sweet, confidence makes you stand out and earn better speaker points. Eye contact does the same. I am a 4th-year debater and with such, I can fluently understand all theory arguments and anything else you want to run. I am completely open to voting on topicality or a K if presented adequately. will vote on a K aff as well, if the framework and judge instruction are clear enough. Lastly, I am a tech over truth debater through and through so I care much more about your fluency and analytics than actual cards. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE just make the round fun to watch.

Head Coach --- Goddard High School

Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School

15 years experience

> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <

AFF Cases

You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.

On-Case and Impacts

I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.

DAs

I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.

CPs

I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.

T

Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.

Ks / Theory

Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.

Delivery

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: immagivethe3nr@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:

If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

Preface

Any agreement that is racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, or rudeness will get you the atomic loss for that team. I don’t have any arguments that I don’t like running Im a 4th year debater and forensic myself at Campus run what you want.

T- Topically is good if done correctly. T is an absolute voting issue. If you win T, you win. That is to say, T either has to be your only argument by the end of the debate. I will say T is my least favorite argument that's run, unless its clear the aff is off-topic.

DA- DA’s are good just make sure you have all the parts to DA. Disadvantages are like tables if you're missing one leg (ex- link) your whole table will fall so make sure it is a full DA.

K- Kirtiks are my favorite arguments. I'm a K debater myself if you do a K argument though don't be a robot have an emotion that's the whole point for the K. If you don't know the K don't run it.

CP- Counter plans are good. I will only vote on a CP if you have a net benefit to go along with it (ex- DA)

CASE- ????

The case is so important, as the neg you need to push case push why your off case links and affects the aff. As the aff it's your job to explain the case to me you know it the best so tell me why the aff outweighs the neg.

Lastly,

Be Interesting be funny make me laugh be different.

I do love fun and playful sarcasm but be nice!

And lastly, this is a school activity you should not be scared every debater has been in the same spot as you, so have fun!

I debated for 4 years at Campus high school. Please asks questions before a round if you need to. Just try to convince me of your arguments, go as crazy as you want but make it convincing.

Aff

If you drop a neg argument that plausibly outweighs you will lose.

The burden of proof is on you, and at the end of the debate i need to be convinced why I should vote for the affirmative.

Neg

T - topicality is a prima facie argument, I will vote based on a good T argument but I will fault you if you make half hearted T arguments

CP - Counterplans must at least be better than the aff in one way and must be mutually exclusive, simply restating the aff case but from the negative side will lose you the round

K - a good K argument wins, I love Ks, but I want to see a K that is run well and is fully explained

"I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!" -Grandpa Simpson

Name- Preston Peer

School-Goddard High School

# of years debated in HS- 4 What School(s) -Wichita Heights, Wichita Northwest

# of years debated in College- 2 What College/University(s)- Kansas State, Wichita State

Currently a (check all that apply)

____Head HS Coach

X- Asst. HS Coach

____College Coach

_____College Debater

X- Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

#of rounds on this year’s HS Topic-1 (10ish Novice and JV)

Feelins bout stuff-

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate? - Closest to is a policymaker. It's how I was taught, and where I'm most comfortable. However, I try to be open minded, and you should debate how you are most comfortable. I like being told why and how I should vote.

What do you think the Aff burdens should be? I like things that stick to the resolution. Kritik affs are fine, but you will have a hard time getting my vote if you don't relate to the resolution, or defend a stable "plan text". I'm old and boring: I still think the aff should, like, affirm the resolution in some way. Other than that, I'm open to debate about what the aff should be doing.

What do you think the Neg burdens should be? Prove the aff is a bad idea, or doesn't fall under the resolution. How you want to do that is up to you, but I do have a bias towards a good policy debate.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)? Fast is fine, but I much prefer clear and efficient. Top speed is not as important as clarity and word economy. My ear is bad on its best day, and I'm severely out of practice

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks? They're fine. Specific is always better, but I get it. Run your stuff.

How I feel about case debates? Case debates are the best.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

I've been involved in debate for 15 years, and every year I find out and learn so much more about not just the topic, but debate as a whole. With that in mind, while I do know some tips and tricks, I know that there is always more to be learned, and because of this, I'm not going to try and pretend to be smarter than I actually am. If I don't get your kritikal argument, or weird framework, or whatever other argument, I'm not going to vote for it, and I don't care how dumb I look. You should still be able to explain to a person of mediocre intelligence (me) what the heck you are arguing, and if you can't, I'm not going to do the work for you.

On a similar note, I am loathe to take evidence at the end of a debate, or spend much more than a few minutes at most deciding who won. I am not of the belief that the debaters should hand the judge a messy round and expect them to do the work of finding out who won. I make a real effort to judge based on what is said in the round. With this in mind, i prefer good analysis to anything else. Don't get dragged down too much into the line by line. 1 good argument beats 4 bad arguments in response. Tell me why, how, and where you are winning the debate. Overviews make me happy.

Final note: debate is, by its nature, an adversarial activity. I get that. That doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a jerk. Be kind and respectful to one another. Ya'll are high school debaters. It is okay to step back and acknowledge the humanity of the other team you are facing. This is important, and you should give as much as you can to win the round, but no ones life hangs in the balance. Being mean, snooty, or condescending hurts your speaks more than being bad at debate. This applies to coaches, too. The "Aloof Debater Affect" everyone puts on at these tournaments is not only unnecessary, it makes you all look ridiculous, too. Lighten up, everyone. Having said all that, debate is a confrontational activity, so you don't have to be saccharine and fake. Sarcasm and deadpan make me happy.

Good luck and have fun to all debaters. Please ask questions for clarity.

Background

I have been debating for 4 years now at Hutchinson High School as a Policy debater .

Prep Time - I understand that technology issues do exist, I am quite lenient when it comes down to tech errors, grabbing and sorting flows, getting a timer prepared, ect. I would prefer you be ready though. But if you start to abuse it I will enforce prep time.

Delivery

I do prefer a slower debate in which you really get into the details of an argument. I have noticed that there is a lot more clash in doing so because you can really get the point of the argument. It also will help clash because the other team will understand the argument and understand how to answer it. It also just comes out more impactful. But if you must go faster that is fine.

I flow from the speech itself, not the document. So if you think something is important I would try to go slower on it to emphasize and make sure that I get it written.

I do like debates that are a little more intense just because it really brings out the passion in all of the participants. But I don't want it to go to the point when someone starts to get irritated or worse. This is for educational purposes, try to have fun with it.

Please sign-post, it's hard for me to flow arguments for you/other team if you don't say what you are exactly answering. It also is just really nice to know what I am going to be hearing about so I can prep and make it a lot neater.

Arguments/Stock Issues

Critique - I’m not in opposition to critical debate, but for me to vote and understand it, you will really have to explain it, and explain it really well.

I think the most important issues in debate are Inherency, Solvency, and Topicality. While everything else is important these stick out to me the most.

I think a good debate revolves around clash. Without clash there is really no point in the debate, so the more clash the better.

Inherency - Inherency should be one of the main things that are debated in a round. Inherency is what is wrong in today's SQ, so if you drop inherency, does your plan really solve for anything? I will vote on Inherency.

Solvency - Kind of like the Inherency section, If you drop solvency then you have made me lean to the opposing side. Without solvency, you don't solve... Simple as that.

Topicality - I do like a topicality debate because it challenges both sides to know the whole resolution fairly well and requires the Affirmative to do more than just memorize some cards (Meaning that in my opinion, Topicality is a voter issue).

Counterplans - I think counterplans are a very technical and useful strategy, but you really have to make me believe that it is more useful than the aff's plan. You will also have to solve for the burdens of a counterplan

CX

CX is the most important time in debate. Not only are you giving more time for your partner to perfect their speech. But on top of that, this is where you can really expose holes in your opposing team's case/arguments. You can get a lot through CX if you use your time and use it well.

Behavior

I will not tolerate any disrespect, bullying, rude, and hateful comments or actions. There is no room for that in debate. We are all here to get better and to learn from this experience. We should be trying to raise each other up, not leaving others behind

Reasons for decision

Majority of the time I am a Policy Maker/Stock Issues judge because I find it important that if the affirmative can find more pro's to the plan than the negative can find con's, then it should be passed and vice versa. But if I am told to view the round in a different view I will.

Impact Calc: If your opponents do impact calc and you don't... don't expect the ballot to be in your favor. If you want me to vote or view a certain way, you have to say so. Convince me.

In The End

In the end, debate is supposed to be both educational and fun. Just try to enjoy yourself and try to do your best.