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.