I am a recently retired former debate coach of more than 35 years so I am familiar with debate theory and practice. In general I will listen to any arguments put forward by the debaters and evaluate them in the manner the debaters ask me to. That said, if the debaters do NOT give me a framework for evaluating arguments I will have to make one up which is likely to make at least one of the teams in the round unhappy. There are a couple of things that I am "old school" on. I will listen to T arguments and use the voters the teams put forward to evaluate it, but I believe that being inside the boundaries of the resolution is a minimum requirement for the Affirmative so I am not giving any bonus points to Aff. for doing so. In short, reverse voters on T are going to require a lot of work by the Aff to convince me. I also believe that CPs must be non-topical; otherwise they are advocating affirming the resolution. So if Neg want to run a topical counter plan they are going to have to do some work to convince me that is an acceptable position. Otherwise the round belongs to the teams and I will evaluate in the manner they ask me to. Finally, speed is fine so long as it is clear. That said, I am happier as a judge evaluating augments that are developed in depth rather than evaluating many arguments presented rapidly but with little depth or explanation. Good luck and speak well!

Experience: HS - 4 yrs; College - 4 yrs; Former High School Debate coach.

Open to any argument for consideration.

Open to any speed so long as you can be understood (by me). I’ll ask you to slow down or enunciate if needed.

Don’t cut cards as to negate or misrepresent their context. I will likely ask to read a few cards post-round and if you are abusive with how you cut cards or if they are out of context, that will be a major problem for me.

Be nice. Be smart.

I am a fairly inexperienced judge, but I judged at the Paola tournament this year.

Make sure you speak clearly. I won't be able to understand your arguments if you are not a clear speaker.

Make sure you explain your arguments in depth and explain to me why your arguments have weight in this round and why you should win the round.

Be nice, have fun, debate well, and good luck!

I am a fairly inexperienced judge, but I am fairly familiar with the topic. My son is a debater and I have judged at the Olathe North and Paola tournaments.

I am not a big fan of speed, but I will make it obvious that I am not receiving what you are saying.

I will judge this round based on stock issues but if stock issues are extremely close, I will judge based on a policy maker paradigm.

I am not familiar with kritiks, so if you run one you will need to explain very in depth details.

Counterplans are acceptable, but they need to be very net beneficial

Be nice, have fun, debate well, and good luck!

Hello my name is Shannon Catlin. I have judged debate for the last four years, while also participating as a debater in my high school career. When I sit down to a debate I prefer to hear evidence based proof with a footprint to back your sources. I also look for if a debater understands what they are presenting, explaining in your own terms.

I like to see what your policy is and how your plan of action will work with proof and funding. I watch for confident body language and being able to make eye contact with your peers.

I will allow spectators if the participants also agree, however they will not be allowed electronic devises.

Let's have s great debate.

Preferred Debate Styles: CX, Policy

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually. If it is brought up as an argument, it should be discussed.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

No comment.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Stay within the allotted time and clash civilly with your opponents. Citations after evidence is read is important.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

It won't.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

No comment.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

As long as you prove it and support it with evidence, I don't care.

Please explain your views on kritical arguments.

Run whatever you want.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Topicality is to only be run when actually applicable.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

It's also very important that the debaters speak clearly and can pronounce the difficult words well.

Make sure that when your opponent is speaking and you are discussing with your partner, you speak in a low tone. It's distracting and disruptive.

I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.

Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).

I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.

As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.

If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.

Tabula rasa. Tell me how I should vote in the round. If not I’ll defer to stock issues. Also, link off-case arguments.

JUDGES PARADIGM SHEET

Name : Kelsey Green

City State: Girard, KS

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes; Number of years :4

2) Did you debate in college? No Number of years: 0

3) How many elimination rounds have you judged on this topic?0

4) How many preliminary rounds have you judged on this topic?4

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year:Buhler Debate Tournament

6) Please choose the following that applies to your judging criteria:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

a. Communicative skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.

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

c. Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance.

II. Which best prescribes your paradigm or approach to judging debate?

a. Skills emphasis (Who does the “better job of debating”)

b. Stock issues emphasis

c. Policy maker emphasis

d. Hypothesis testing emphasis

e. Tabula rasa (judge adopts perspective according to standards in the round)

f. Other

III. What speed or rate of presentation do you prefer?

a. Slow and deliberate – conversational pace, speed discouraged.

b. Moderate contest rate (e.g. – extemp) faster speed discouraged.

c. Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated-very rapid speed discouraged.

d. Very rapid delivery preferred.

e. No preference regarding speed.

IV. Counterplans are:

a. Never acceptable

b. Rarely acceptable, and only if specifically justified by substantive plan mandates.

c. Acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach.

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

V. Topicality is:

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

b. Fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

c. Rarely important; violation of topicality must be fairly blatant to win my ballot.

d. Almost never or never important to my decision-making process.

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

Experience:

Debated 3 years in high school

Judged 7 rounds on this topic this year

Professional Cybersecurity expert

TLDR:

I'll vote any way you point me, as long as you tell me why I should vote that way in the round. (Impact calc, Stock issue voters, etc.)

I can understand anything you throw at me, nothing is off the table.

I try hard to keep a tight flow, so if there is a missed argument, I likely have seen it and I'm waiting for the dropped argument to be pointed out and weighed as a voter. (Not all dropped arguments are automatic winners!)

I like to see Disadvantages and Topicality arguments, though I will vote on good on-case arguments as well.

Details of Judging Criteria:

Style: Tabula Rasa

Speed: Any

Counterplans: Acceptable, as long as it's related to the subject matter

Topicality: Acceptable and important, does not have to be consistent with the rest of the negative strategy

Generic Disadvantages:Acceptable

Kritiks: Acceptable

I debated all four years of high school and have been judging for two years now.

I just want to see a fair, educational debate round. Be respectful to your fellow debaters. I won’t use speech drop, so make sure you’re not relying on the usage of speech drop to convince your competitors or me of your side. You and the other competitors are more than welcome to use it, I just won't join. Share files in CX not before speeches.

I am primarily a stock issue judge, but I will vote on off-case if that is what's important to the round. If you choose to run T, make it important and don’t use it as a timesuck.

Closed CX. I will also be timing speeches.

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round.

Experience:

High School policy: 4 years- 2004 4A 2 Speaker State Champion

College (NFA LD): 4 Years- 2010 PI KAPPA DELTA National Simi-finalist

Assistant Coach: Fort Scott High School 2005-2010

If you have any questions about my Paradigm please ask

Default decision making: Policy Maker

I will default policy maker unless I am put into another paradigm throughout the round.

Topicality/Theory:

Threshold- I evaluate T as a litmus test to determine if the affirmative is topical. T in my opinion does not need to be consistent with others aspects of the negative strategy. Same with other theory arguments.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Threshold- These are key components for the affirmative and negative. I am ok with generic DAs. Terminal impacts are preferred.

Counter Plans:

Threshold- Generally acceptable as long as there is a clear net benefit.

Kritiks:

Threshold- Generally acceptable. Must be able to defend and explain.

I mostly base my decisions on good policy. I do mix in stock issues of they are applicable which is mostly topicality.

I prefer real-world arguments.

Good speech organization is always a positive foot forward.

Respect for each other is key. I do not like shouting matches or putting down of others.

Counterplans are acceptable if they are sound.

I am not a fan of Kritiks or Resolution Justification.

My preference on the pace of speech is the pace at which the common man can understand. In short, if you're gasping for breath, you're too fast.

I am a tabula rasa Judge. I prefer to judge using the evidence that both parties present. I prefer that debaters stay on topic and avoid semantics as they do not really add to the points being made. Make you definition heard, but don't spend all of your rebuttal round talking about semantic issues.

I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.

*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.

I have four years of high school debate experience, and am now studying to become a debate/forensics coach in college.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, so I'll vote on whatever you tell me I need to be voting on. You frame the round. If no one tells me how to vote, I'll default to a stock issues judge.

If I have to default to stock issues judging, here's what I'm looking for:

Aff needs to win stock issues. For neg, offcase arguments are fine, but it's going to be hard to win the ballot without winning on any stock issues along with the offcase.

Generic DA's are ok, but please offer a compelling link to the aff.

Counterplans are also ok, but please make a compelling argument as to why I need to prefer the CP over the aff.

I'll listen to a topicality argument, but unless the violation is really obvious, it's really hard for me to justify a win based on T. If the neg runs topicality, but also runs case specific arguments, I probably won't take T into my decision.

If you are going to run a Kritik, make it good and make it make sense.

I'll clear up any questions you have.

I debated for a little over 6 years, 4 in high school and 2 on the collegiate level. I would say that I am close to being a stock issues judge, but overall, I prioritize respect in the round. :)

I am a former debate coach in central/western Kansas. I tend to vote stock issues. I am not wild about kritiks, counterplans, or "off the wall" topicality arguments, but I will listen. The message is important, but so is speaking style and skill.

Tabula Rasa

I've been in the debate community for 16 years. Please tell me how I should vote and why. I am open to any judging paradigm.

Clear links, signposting, and substantial impacts are critical. I enjoy good impact calc when weighing the round as a policymaker. If you want me to vote from a stock issues paradigm, please provide an excellent line-by-line debate.

D/A's - I expect clear and direct links to the AFF case when using generic D/A's.

K's - Welcomed if severe and authentic. If it's a joke about us living in the matrix, I will probably not vote for it unless the other team can't answer. 

Topicality - I don't care. I understand the strategy of T to cause commitment to an affirmative stance to provide stronger links. If proper T shells exist on both sides, it becomes neutral in my mind unless a team offers an excellent analysis that sells me.

Speed - I support spreading evidence at any pace. I do care about cadence and accuracy during spreading. However, I do prefer your analysis or warrant to be clearly articulated.

I'm a topics judge! I focus on issues and whether they are properly refuted by the other team. I'd strongly suggest not dropping arguments and being very clear

I have been judging for 4 seasons.

I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.

Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.

The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.

The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.

Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

I'm a new judge!

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

Policy maker approach to judging.

I prefer slow and deliberate presentation speed, but moderate is acceptable as long as I can understand you.

Counterplans are acceptable if justified.

Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.

I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Stock Issues, extremely big on Sig and Solv

Tell me why anything you are reading in the round matters, don't just rattle off cards. That is key to clash for me.

Disadvantages this year are in desperate need of uniqueness, tell me how the Aff plan itselfis going to cause the impact. I don’t mind Kritiks, just be aware of the weaknesses inherent in putting one forward in the round.

Hi my name is Ann Stegman. I am a sophomore at K-State and this is my first year being an assistant coach. I mostly did forensics in high school, so debate is somewhat new to me.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

I prefer speech drop, please write the code on the board. Or you can add me to the email chain: annclaire66@gmail.com

I look for teams who are respectful, speak clearly and articulately, are able to sufficiently summarize topics, and present confidently during the round.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Pronouns: he/his

vestegman@usd206.org

I 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 have been judging debate for several years. I am primarily a stock issues judge and will be basing my decision mostly on successful arguments of stock issues. I expect to hear clearly cited evidence that pertains to the debate round. Since debate is also about speaking, I will also be looking for speeches that are constructed well and competitors with good speaking abilities. I do not care for Kritiques. Stick to the stock issues. Counter plans should be thorough, well constructed and presented if used, but I am not really a huge fan of most counter plans either.

I am a science educator for 28 years. While I didn't participate in debate in high school or college, my students often have to debate topics in my classroom. I have been judging debate for 3 years. Being a science educator, I need to have links between topics clearly analyzed. There needs to be a direct correlation between the evidence and your conclusion. I believe good communication is a must. Rapid delivery is needed but it cannot be at the expense of understanding. Topicality is very important but should not be the only counter argument. In most cases, it is very hard to prove something is not topical. Counterplans are acceptable, but need to show why they are better and more beneficial than the original plan. I need to be able to follow your line of thinking and have evidence to support your line.

I vote on a stock-issue paradigm, in which stock issues that carry through constructives will probably determine the ballot.

I strongly recommend off-time road maps and frequent summary/recap. These skills are so important in life, especially the ability to summarize someone else's perspective to check one's understanding.

I have warmed to off-case in the past year, so let 'em rip. It's unlikely for me to vote on off-case or style alone. Stocks still count significantly. Here's a twist: if stocks aren't your thing on neg, consider a well-conceived and well-executed K. I appreciate calculated risk-taking when the only alternative is mediocrity on the stock issues.

I have grown to love debate and love the young people who invest their Saturdays. I coach some (beloved!) students who are perpetually excited, behave badly, and need to learn ... moderation. Some of you might need to learn it also, so that you have it as an option instead of fighting/flighting/freezing throughout life. I am a judge who might try to help your coach teach moderation to you. Truculent, surly, adversarial behavior by debaters bums me out and can cost the ballot. Shouting hurts my ears.

Debate is worthy of the time we all spend. A problem with debate is that it tends to reward disagreement. In life we must find places of agreement, especially when we are competing and it is hard to agree. I award ballot credit for the team that seeks a place of agreement with an opponent, and expresses it at some point in the round. And by "agreement" I mean: sincere agreement followed by "and," not superficial agreement followed by "but."

Thanks everyone!

I am a lay judge and have judged in the past but it has been a while. While judging, I will put emphasis on your speaking abilities, preparation, and organization. Speed of speech is not as important for me as to understand what you are saying. Your apparent knowledge about the subject is crucial and clash is vital to show true depth of knowledge and analysis of position. Please be thorough in your explanation and analysis, evidence alone is not enough.

Casey Woodward