I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 16 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

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 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 debated for three years in high school (a LONG time ago) in the late 80s. I judged for quite a few years then took a break for awhile and resumed judging the last 7 years consistently. There have been many changes that have evolved throughout the time, but I remain pretty traditional.

PET PEEVE: I hate the use of the term "card." As my wonderful debate coach insisted, you should not use the term "card" is not what you are relying upon it is evidence, support, substantiation, or anything similar. Debaters today haven't even made "cards" as we used to back in my day of debate. It is just sloppy speaking as with too many acronyms.

To me, debate is about the affirmative making the prima facie case on all 5 of the stock issues (Topicality, Significance, Inherency, Workability & Solvency). Just like in a criminal case, the Negative only has to win one to create reasonable doubt. I do believe Topicality is a vital issue, and I will listen to the arguments, but I do not want to hear droning on and on about the impacts - get on with how the case isn't topical and move on.

Organized arguments are important to me and add to your ability to persuade.

I am unimpressed with tricky or non-traditional arguments. I like to see the basics performed well and at a high level.

As far as speed goes, I do not find it persuasive or convincing for individuals to speak in monotone voice as quickly as you can reading source after source. Don't speak faster than you can clearly enunciate and take time to explain your arguments and how the evidence you have "proves" the point you are trying to make. I also like when people listen to their opponent's evidence and find flaws, reasons why it doesn't support their case.

A few words about Cross Examinations - I find it offensive when debaters ask questions and then interrupt or talk over the person trying to answer. IF you want a "yes/no" response, learn to ask questions that elicit such responses. If the person drones on and on and on, then I think it is reasonable to raise a hand and say, I think you have answered may we move one? Or something respectful. Keep in mind that this is not argument. You cannot just rely on the questions raised here to carry through on into the speeches as they do not.

For this online forum - I do not want to be part of the email chain as I have enough to manage the two screens with zoom & tabroom open. If there becomes some dispute about the evidence/source, I will ask you to send it to me. I also do not want to wait forever if things are not going through. We did not routinely just have the other side hand over their case/evidence and learned to take our own notes and create arguments just fine. I have been in rounds wasting 30+ minutes just waiting for evidence to be received by the opponents. I like to keep it moving.

Tabula rasa (blank slate) and policy maker

I'm a head debate and forensics coach.

Debate: Hypothesis Testing Paradigm

Steps for judging.

1. I look at stock issues first on the affirmative side, HIPS Case (Harms, Inherency, Plan text, Solvency)
2. Then prove your plan is Topical if the Negative brings a logical Topicality issue to the board.
3. I look to see if the Aff Case has more benefits(ADvantages) than DisAdvantages.
4. Most of my Reasons For Decisions (RFD) are based on the affirmative team proving that the problem exists and that they can solve it without harming the world. Statistics will help here.
5. If the Negative disproves a stock issue, the topicality of the plan is unclear or proves a disadvantage of the plan happening, the Negative wins.

Forensics:

Speech:

1. Organized logical thoughts and structured speeches.
2. Wants to communicate to their audience (Before, during, and after the performance)
3. Presents, Proves, and Explains a Thesis (Opinion about life)

Acting / Interpretation:

1. Presents a teaser that develops an exposition
2. Transitions to an introduction that presents a theme (life lesson)
3. Gives intense, supported emotional reactions to the text and situation through blocking, voice, expression, and transitions.
4. The text is presented as a mini-plot line with rising action (beginning), climax (middle), and resolution (end).

I am a stock issues judge, make sure you explain how you attack the stock issues on NEG and defend all of them on AFF. I was a 4-year policy debater and am now a college debater. I was the assistant debate coach at Manhattan High School. I don't care if you spread but make sure I can understand you. My least favorite argument is the recency of your cards. Do not tell me to prefer your evidence because of the year unless you absolutely have a good reason why their evidence is invalid. Obviously no new args in rebuttals but feel free to run new cards in your 2AR. Not liking an argument is not an excuse to not interact with it. Always take your opponent's argument at its best. I'm not a fan of K debate but I will definitely vote on a K if it is well explained and well-argued. Don't kick arguments that aren't hurting you.

My email for chains/questions/feedback is katerina.thomas01@gmail.com !

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.