I debated in high school and college (University of Kansas). I coached high school debate for 8 years and have judged regularly since going back to graduate school. Currently I am a retired university professor of communication studies. I am a co-author of Mastering Competitive Debate and have written many articles about debate. My paradigm is that I will judge whatever you offer me. I can flow most anything, but I really don't like out of control speed with spitting, yelling, and indecipherable words. Debate is a communication activity and there should still be some of that involved and in no other setting would that type of behavior be appropriate (ask my husband who was a trial and appeals court judge for 30+ years and a former HS and college debater). I tend to be more negative-oriented in my judging the past few years and that is not because I naturally favor the negative but because I have heard very few really solid affirmative cases. As a debater and a coach, aff was really my strength (coached the only undefeated aff in 6A 4-person at State the year we won it. So, affirmatives make sure your evidence says what you claim it says, that you have causality and significant advantages. Negatives (and affirmatives) I don't believe you need a piece of evidence on every point of a case if you dismantle the affirmative's evidence and logic. I could say more, but basically make good arguments, support them with evidence and logic and select the voting issues in rebuttals.

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

Email: cadenhickel@gmail.com

Former Policy, PF, and Congress debater for Manhattan High School, KS ('16-'20)

A small amount of Policy debate experience at Emporia State University. ('22)

I competed at NSDA Nationals during my freshman year of HS.

He/him/his pronouns.

Policy Paradigm (listed in order of importance):

Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated. Respect given pronouns.

I'm an even split between a policymaker judge and tabula rasa. I'll almost always be voting based on the overall good vs overall harm of a plan. I should not have to make assumptions about what I should vote for. It's the burden of both sides of the debate to at least give the voting issues in their final speeches.

Speed: Fine as long as it's not full-fledged spreading and monotone. At the very least, slow down on taglines and analytics. I prefer moderate speed so arguments are plentiful enough while still being able to interpret what's going on.

Kritiks: No kritiks in JV/Novice divisions. I have little experience with critical debate. If you're going to run a K, explain well.

Topicality: I encourage a good topicality debate as long as it's not abusive. Violations should be fairly blatant and spend time explaining the standards.

Disads: Emphasis on having a decent link. I expect to hear some sort of impact calc debate in the rebuttals.

Counterplans: I'm indifferent. I have hardly seen a CP win but feel free to change that if your heart desires.

Cross-ex: I strongly advise closed cross-examination.

Debate is educational. Have fun; that is the most important thing to me.

Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is hannahphel@gmail.com if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.

I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.

Experienced debater and judge. Anything goes. If you win it, I'll vote for it. Ok with speed, but it's been a few years so a little rusty.

I come from a 3A high school where I debated for three years and participated in forensics for four.

K's - I don't understand them. Please either spoon feed them to me or don't run them at all.

Generic DA's - Link it and convince me of the link.

Impacts - PLEASE no extinction impacts. Make it realistic so it's harder to right them off.

Topicality - Don't be stupid with it.

Speed - As long as everyone (including yourself) can understand what you are saying we are fine while reading cards. Please slow down during analysis.

USE ANALYSIS. The evidence is important so read it but then tell me why it's important.

AFF - GOOD POLICY IS KEY.

NEG - PROVE WHY POLICY DOESN'T WORK or STATUS QUO BETTER.

I am a Tabula Rosa with a default in Policy.