Hey friends!

My name is Shelton Byrnes and I work for Topeka Public Schools as a Secretary. On top of that, I work a second full time job at Topeka Civic Theatre as a Server. I debated my Freshman and Senior Year of High School for Shawnee Heights, and I competed at state and did pretty well for a JV kid! But TBH friends, I am a forensicater WAY before I would call myself a debater. I love emotional stuff and personal anecdotes in your speeches, tell me why YOU care, not just the authors!

I would say I am mild to moderate in terms of my knowledge of the cases this year. Obviously I don't have my doctorate in Humanitarianism with a minor in aqua biology, but I am a pretty smart cookie!

I promised myself I would say this as a judge, so here it goes. Speak at whatever speed you are comfortable at, BUT don't expect me to catch every work for those of you that spread, I work at a preschool, so I am pretty good at deciphering meaning with little context, but don't let my brain come up with something you didn't say! That can work against you!

Stay away from any problematic args, as that will likely get you IMMEDIATELY the 3-4. Be kind, and you'll get farther.

I'm a sucker for a good States CP, and a T arg is totally valuable, even if it is complete and utter nonsense, make them prove to me that they are topical!

TL;DR Emotions Emotions Emotions, run anything you want that is unproblematic, speak at whatever speed you want, dumb it down if you feel it is necessary.

If you have ANY questions about the round, reach out at robert.shelton.byrnes.2002@gmail.com

Caleb F. Kampsen

Debated in high school for four years at Silver Lake Jr./Sr. High School. I ran kritiks, counterplans, generic disadvantages, and topicality along with other negative arguments like topicality. I did speed debate and did slower debate, so I am comfortable with any speed, however I have not judged very often since I left debate, so my tolerance for speed might not be as high as it used to be.

You can make whatever arguments you like, but the most important thing is you telling me how to vote and why. Do impact calculus and tell me what issues are voting issues and why. You probably don't want me having to make my own judgments on why something is a voting issue or not, and like my general tabula rasa paradigm, I will adopt what standards you tell me to.

Did not debate in college.

I have judged a handful of preliminary rounds on this topic.

Priorities in Judging Debate: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa (Judge Adopts Perspective According to Standards in the Round) and stock issues.

Speed or Rate of Presentation: No preference regarding speed.

Counterplans are: Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

Topicality is: Fairly important: roughly on par with other major issues in the round. Essentially, if you tell me that topicality is an important issue/voting issue I will treat it as such, but like with all other issues in the debate, you need to tell me how to evaluate it and why it's a voting issue. And yes, I will vote on topicality if it's warranted.

Generic Disadvantages: Generally acceptable.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

I debated at Silver Lake High for 4 years and 4 years at K-State. I attended the NDT a few times, and made it to deep elims at CEDA a couple times. I assistant coached at the HS and college level for a few years after that.

But I've been out of coaching for about 5 or 6 years now, so don't assume that I really know what the popular arguments and authors are. Getting older has also made my flowing worse, so I’ll tell you to clear if I can’t hear you.

I think I’m tab.

By that I mean that I don't have a particular presumption about certain arguments. Everything's a debate so i'll try to eliminate any bias.

I don’t think there is any “right” way to debate. The right way to debate in front me at least is just to do what makes you comfortable. But above all you need to tell me what to vote for. This can come in any form, impact calc, role of the ballot, whatever. It just needs to happen somewhere to make my decision easier. If you fail to do this I'm probably going to end up making a confusing decision that doesn't make anyone happy, least of all me.

tech > truth, but good spin > bad evidence.

I also tend to protect the 2nr a lot in terms of new arguments, so 1ars should try to be explicit about stuff. With that said, I won't be nearly as sympathetic to a 2nr who goes for an argument and fails to adequately close the door to cross-applications.

If you clip cards you get the loss and 0 speaks.

Ks are fine. I feel like I read a wide enough variety of K stuff when debated that I'm more likely than not to have at least some idea what you're talking about. But like I mentioned at the top, I'm pretty old and K stuff changes a lot, so if your K thing has a lot of neat tricks or nuances, highlight them for me at some point. Like everything else for me just explain why and on what basis I should vote for you, and you’ll be fine. I'm also more likely to vote for you if you make the K interact with the case (root cause, specific link spin, etc.).

Reading K stuff on the aff is fine also. The aff should be at least be somewhat related to the resolution, but the extent to which that is the case is up for debate.

Regarding T, I find myself voting for competing interps a lot, but I can be persuaded either way. Specific abuse makes me want to vote for you, not even just in-round abuse, but, at the very least, specific arguments you lose.

Framework is fine too, just be clear about impact claims like I said before. T version of the aff is encouraged.

Other theory stuff is likewise, just be specific about the impact.

Community Judge (Male, Age 66)

1.) Did not debate in High School

2.) Did not debate in College but did get a BS.

3.) No elimination rounds on the topic.

4.) No preliminary rounds on the topic.

5.) Tournaments - DB8 at the Silver Lake Debate Invitational, FSSL at KSHSAA 4 Speaker Regionals.

6.) Judging Criteria:

I. Priorities - Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Approach - Skills emphasis (Who does the "better job of debating")

III. Speed - Moderate contest rate, faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans - Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the the negative approach.

V. Topicality - Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

VI. Generic disadvantages - Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Scott W. Sexton

Silver Lake, Kansas

1- Did I debate in High School? Yes, 3 years experience.

2- Did I debate in College? No.

3- How many elimination rounds have I judged on this topic? None that I know of.

4- How many preliminary rounds have I judged on this topic? Three.

4- List of tournaments I've judged at this year. Silver Lake, HS.

5-

Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

-Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.

Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

-Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”) and Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

-No preference regarding speed. Clarity of speech and thought are more important.

Counterplans are:

-Acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

Topicality is:

-Very important in my decision; I consider it a paramount issue.

I find generic disadvantages:

-Generally acceptable.

VII. I find kritiks:

-Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.