I was a high school debater and have judged debate at least once or twice a year for the last 20 years.

I prefer to judge rounds based on the validity of arguments and evidence that supports those arguments.

I don't like to base decisions on topicality (especially this year) unless it is abundantly clear that a team is pushing the limit of topicality and the negative can prove it. Even then, I like other arguments in addition to topicality.

If I am judging you, then I want your docs. Please set up an email chain and include me (bentonbajorek@gmail.com) or use speechdrop. AFF should have their 1AC ready to send at the start of the round. I will not keep up with time and I expect debaters to keep each other accountable for speech and prep time. I keep my flows, so any questions can be emailed to me.

COVID Online Debate

Issues with clarity and diction compound when listening to debates with headphones. I'm fine with spreading, but please slow down if you are saying something that isn't in your speech doc-- particularly theory and analytics. If they are in the doc you send me, I'll be good to go. Otherwise, I might miss them. I'm more than happy to vote for things like condo in the 2AR, but I likely won't feel comfortable doing it if I couldn't flow all the nuance because were spreading in the 2AC and didn't include your condo block in the speech doc.

Parli Update

I've grown accustomed to the convenience of speech docs, so please make sure you are slowing down for theory and analytics. You should be intentionally slow for any plantext, counterplan text, or K alt.

Weighing mechanisms/roll of the ballot/framework args are extremely important to me. I want to be told how I should evaluate the round, but I'm not inclined to default to whatever the GOV tells me. OPP can successfully challenge this like any theory argument.

Ask me about my preferences before the round starts if you don't find an answer to your question below.

Background

This is my eighth season judging college policy. I was the head coach at Bishop Seabury Academy from 2019-2021 and a coach at The University of Kansas from 2015-2021. As an undergrad, I competed for four years at Arkansas State University primarily in American Parli on the National Circuit. I also debated in Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, and Team IPDA.

I'm familiar with the debate things, but I'm not paying as much attention to the content from year-to-year now that I'm no longer a coach. Particularly for early in the season, don't assume I know the specific warrants in your DAs and CPs as they pertain to this topic. 

Overview

I view debate as a medium of persuasion and judge accordingly. All too often, I feel debaters focus more on beating their opponent instead of trying to convince the judge on an advocacy position. I believe this model is narrow-minded and the most effective way to win my ballot is to use a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I greatly appreciate if tag lines, plan and CP texts, K alts, theory blocks, and perms could be slowed down so I can get a chance to write them on my flow. If a debater becomes inarticulate, I will yell CLEAR and cross my arms if the speech continues in that manner. If I cannot hear you, then I cannot understand your arguments. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I cannot vote for you.

I will vote on any argument. I consider myself a tab judge and vote based on what arguments are made, not what arguments are stated. Just because you extend an author does not mean you have extended an argument. I have certain preferences and thresholds for arguments that I will do my best to articulate below, but clearly articulated warrants and analysis will make me vote against my predispositions.

2NRs/2ARs that have clear voters and impact calculus are preferred.

If you want to make a role of the ballot argument, I need you to articulate what that means and specifically state how I should view particular arguments under that lens. If you just assert that my job is to vote under a specific framework but fail to clearly articulate what that means, then I will default to my personal standpoint of voting for the team that did the better job debating.

I do not tolerate poor sportsmanship. Every debater puts too much time, effort, and energy to arrive at a round and be belittled by their opponent(s). I love a competitive round where teams don’t back down and are assertive, but keep a level of decorum and respect. Ad hominem attacks and condescending behavior will not be tolerated and I will significantly lower your speaker points.

Bonus**

References to the Clippers = 0.2 speaker points

References to the NBA in general = 0.1 speaker point

Theory

I view debate as a game with rules that can change from round to round. The rules for debate should foster fairness and/or educational gain. I do not particularly favor one over the other.

Teams should slow down and clearly articulate standards for why I should favor their arguments on framework/T/role of the ballot/condo/etc. I really dislike teams that read directly from their blocks and fail to clash with their opponents’ standards and it makes my job difficult if there is not a direct response to specific arguments. In other words, teams that directly respond to their opponents’ arguments on ground loss will fare better than teams that just assert an argument on ground and make me do the work for them.

I am rarely persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I am strongly persuaded by in-round abuse arguments.

Topicality

Topicality must have an interpretation, violation, standard, and voters. I really enjoy listening to T and I appreciate a good standard debate with specific and competitive reasons why your interpretation is better/superior to your opponent.

Voters are often overlooked but are the most important part of a topicality. NEG needs to stress why I should vote on this issue. Refer back to my theory section for this one. I have never voted on a topicality that did not have some sort of education, fairness, and/or jurisdiction voter.

Reverse voting issues are not persuasive. I view topicality as a test of the affirmative case and NEG has the right to make this argument. Do not waste your time trying to convince me otherwise. However, I will say that trying to bury the AFF by running 10+ topicality arguments that are not relevant to the round will make me think poorly of you and I will happily vote for a time-suck argument.

Disadvantages

Disadvantages need to have a clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact scenario. DA’s are arguments that I feel everyone knows how to run, but there are some specific things that I prefer to see.

I want advantage and disadvantage debates to come down to impact calculus. Measure out magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc. If your impact is more meaningful, then tell me why and compare it to other impacts in the round. Pull these arguments out in the 2AR/2NR.

I do not have an opinion on intrinsic perms, but I believe these arguments can be extremely abusive and AFFs choosing to run this will need to lay out some sort of explanation for me to consider it.

Counter Plans

A counterplan must be mutually exclusive with the AFF. If you want to run a plan-plus, consult, push back 3 months CP, etc., then you will need to convince me why your modification of the AFF’s plan is severance, mutually exclusive, and/or has a competitive net benefit.

Kritiks

I ran K’s frequently when I competed and I am very familiar with them. However, when you run a K, do not assume that I know the literature. Do not stick to your cards and be prepared to break down what you are trying to argue with your position. I will not vote for a K if I have no idea what your alt does.

As for specifics, I believe K’s need to win framework or alt solvency for me to vote on them. This goes back to needing to know what the alt does. Understanding how your method is key or has the potential to work in the real world is important for me to vote on it.

I am rarely persuaded by links of omission. AFFs that read 1 card or make a smart analytical argument here are very likely to refute the link.

I prefer specific over generic links. Really prove the AFF team violated the ideas you are critiquing.

Performance in Debate/K AFF’s

I believe that AFFs that do not have a plan are untopical and should lose. I also believe that AFFs that run a plan text, but only garner impacts from their performance are extratopical and should lose.

That being said, I have voted for many K AFFs because they won on Framework and/or T. I do not have to be an auto-strike for you, but a framework block on how I should evaluate your position is necessary for you to win. If you fail to demonstrate and justify a framework for why the round should be seen through your performance then it is difficult for me to understand what my ballot should be doing. This allows me to hold you to a standard and have the other team either challenge you on that idea, or compete against you on it. Don’t be a moving target and state this clearly in your 1AC.

I think K AFFs that talk about the educational benefits of their position or justify the need of their AFF within the debate space to counter hegemonic practices are strong arguments that have potential to convince me to vote for you.

Final note: Any team that uses music in their performance can use it, but it needs to be turned down substantially during speeches and CX. I have trouble focusing with loud music/distractions and this is intended to create access for myself in the debate space and not to silence your performance.

I use she/her pronouns.

I debated in college. I have worked with high school policy debate for five years.

I believe debate is a forum for advocacy. I believe it should be accessible to all audiences. I am not lay, but I prefer styles that cater to lay audiences (big pictures, clear impacts, clear explanations, clear voters, etc.)

-Both teams must share speech docs: forgetting to share will result in docked speaker points, refusal will result in an auto-win to your opponent

-I don't flow or vote on new arguments in rebuttals--responsive evidence to support previously made arguments are okay though. If you intend to split the block, you need to articulate that.

-Ad hominem attacks, offensive rhetoric, and any other forms of abuse/violence will not be tolerated. At a minimum, I will dock speaker points. I reserve the right to end a round early due to excessive inappropriate behavior. No one should ever be personally attacked, bullied, or made to feel like they as a person don't matter. Be professional and respectful. Leave it in the ring.

-I'm fine with moderate-fast speeds. Once you have to go way up in your head voice to spread, you're gonna lose me. Enunciation is key no matter the speed. The clearer you are, the faster you can go for me.

-I could not care less about planks. I view plank complaints and arguments as a time-suck rather than proper clash. Debates that focus on the substantive content of the topic are going to automatically get higher speaker points from me than those that don't.

-Roadmap and signpost. Don't leave me searching my flow to figure out what you are talking about. I like titles, tags, and clear delineation between points.

*Framework is a priori.

I will vote how teams tell me to vote, regardless of my real-life opinions. Give me weighing mechanisms. Give me voters. Give me standards.

If you tell me to weigh the round using impact calculus, I need to know how to weigh impacts (magnitude, timeline, probability, etc.).

All conceded frameworks will stand. All competitive frameworks need to be justified.

*Persuasion is key.

I do not flow jargon. "Extend BlahBlahBlah" should be followed with a brief summary/explanation.

"They dropped BlahBlah" should be followed with an explanation of why that is important and why that is beneficial to you.

I like analytics. I love analytics backed up with a card.

*Counterplans

Sure! If you can solve better, do it. I'm cool with viable perms, too. Win the links and impacts, win the CP/Perm.

*Topicality

Not my favorite, but if there is a strong argument for loss of ground/education, then sure! But you have to make the argument; I won't make it for you. I need clear standards and voters. Answer the "so what?"

If an AFF team reasonably convinces me that either they meet a NEG definition or their counter-interpretation is preferable, I will give it to the AFF. There are few instances where I will award the NEG a T win on predictability/ground if I have seen the AFF before. Making ground claims and then running specific DAs or using specific link scenarios moots your grounds argument for me.

*Kritiks

Sure! Clear alt. Clear world of the aff vs. alt impact calc. Clear links. Clear explanations. Don't assume I am familiar with the literature (remember I prefer lay styles), but don't get caught misconstruing the literature (keep in mind I am experienced).

*Advantages/Disadvantages

I'm not going to vote for time-sucks. Walk me through the links and impacts. Weigh the impacts. If you don't have the time to explain it, you probably shouldn't be running it.

I flow. If you tell me that the other team dropped something and I clearly have it on my flow, you will not win any of your extensions.

Typically tabula rasa style judge. Whatever the direction and style of the round that debaters take on, I can go along. High school debater 2000-2002 at Tonganoxie High School. No preferences on speed or style, but would prefer clearly made arguments as opposed to speed for speed's sake. I flow rounds so I'll keep up either way.

Most rounds I judge will come down to fundamental debate/speaking skills, knowledge of topic, stock issues.

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 am a former high school debate parent and the parent of a current high school debate coach.

Please be careful not to speak quickly. It is imperative that I and your opponents are able to understand you. Infuse humor and personality into the round where appropriate.

Cite your sources when you have them, so I know when you are reading a cut card versus making an analytical argument.

I'm not fond of counterplans, but will consider a thorough topicality argument from a Negative team.

*please add me to your email chain: connor.r.england@gmail.com*

Debate Experience: 4 years of high school policy debate (state finalist for 3 of those years), 3 years of collegiate parliamentary debate. Significant experience in real-world legislative policy construction and political debate.

PRIMARY PARADIGM: Policy-maker/Tab Rasa. Whoever’s policy direction makes the world a better place will typically gain my vote (this is policy debate, after all). I expect some sort of impact calculus performed – but the framework and standards by which those impacts are evaluated are absolutely up for negotiation by the debating teams. Even senators regularly scrap policies due to critical/structural analyses, as opposed to purely voting on napkin-sketch utilitarianism. Act as if what you argue for will be enacted, consequences and all. Someday, due to your words, it just might.

STOCK ISSUES:

- H/I: inherency is often not of much importance. If the policy doesn't exist currently, I should be able to evaluate your policy as an alt to the Status Quo. The Neg has the opportunity to represent the status quo or provide a counter plan.

- S: This needs to be proven in order for you to have any access to your advantages.

- Advantages vs DAs: Straight-up policy debate is always a good time. Make sure that links/internal links are explained well. Generics are okay, specific links are preferred.

TOPICALITY: I’m a fan of topicality and think weighing whether or not the aff is a part of the resolution is a major part of the round. The resolution is the only apriori common ground we all have, and was written to try and create the most educational environment for debaters. If cases fall outside of the resolution, there must be a sound theoretical/framework argument as to how education can be maintained/furthered without being topical. I tend to believe that there are common T arguments which often fail to show that fair educational ground has been lost - reasonability tends to be an argument with diminishing returns, and spec debates probably need to be a gross violation in order to be a meaningful voting issue. That said, even in those instances: T’s primary purpose is to create a stable model for debate. If your argument preserves education and you can prove it, don’t be afraid to go all-in.

COUNTERPLANS: CPs are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative. However, just like T, there are some common CPs which seem to be less constructive (Delay, Consult/Conditions without meaningfully specific solvency advocate, etc). Feel free to test the affirmative’s case however you feel is useful, but know what you’re doing if you’re going to do it, and be clear to me in your analysis.

KRITIKS: Critical perspectives are important, even in the realm of policy-making – that said, many of the thoughts critical thinkers espouse are tough to do meaningfully in a few minutes flat. If you're going to go for this type of debate, you need to be ready to do it justice, i.e. spend some time and be willing to commit to the argument. Similarly, I enjoy K debates and am open to listening to them, but please make sure that you actually understand what you’re arguing. If you don’t understand it or how it clashes with the other team’s arguments, *I* won’t understand it/your position. And If I don’t understand it, I don’t vote for it. Just make sure that you explain how the K affects the debate, be it post-plan or in-round impacts, and *please* provide a specific interpretation for me to make a decision on.

HIGH-LEVEL NOTES:

- Debate is an educational, intellectually rigorous activity. Things that deter from that education will affect you. Please refer to specific arguments for potential issues.

- Kindness and respect are prerequisites for accessing the educational value of a debate. A mean spirit will cost you (both in our rounds, and out in the real world). So be nice, m’kay.

- Tech > Truth, but your arguments *need* to be warranted.

- Clash matters, almost above all else (with the rare exception of well-demonstrated theoretical/K abuse). Without it, it is [literally] not a debate. Make sure that your arguments are connecting to what the other team says.

- Don’t waste time by running arguments just for the sake of argument (e.g. 3 quick T’s which you use to sandbag, then kick); make sure it applies. This is a corollary to the above point above.

- Speed is acceptable, but please remember that technology affects the ability for everyone to hear. If I cannot understand you, I will say “clear”. If you don’t clear up your speech, I will wait a few more seconds, and will then stop flowing.

- CP's and K's are perfectly okay to run, but PLEASE specify if you are taking a multiple-world approach, and be sure to analyze the 1AC within the merits of the CP/K.

- Do not drop the flow, particularly in the rebuttals, or the argument will go to the last response.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY RE: DEBATE

It is important to know why we're here/why debate matters. If you've ever wondered... please consider this possible explanation, and let it inform your future debates.

- DEBATE: To use language and logical argumentation as tools to mutually inform a group's understanding of a subject/object of interest.

- POLICY DEBATE: To use debate to construct and test potential legal solutions (both the good and the bad that can from them, under various frameworks) to problems that affect people within a jurisdictional bound.

- This activity is modeled off of how politicians and lawmakers in the real world work together to better understand the issues we face, and come to build solutions to those issues (i.e. make laws) that affect all people inside the borders that those laws apply to. It's a serious, often life-or-death, activity, and should be treated with respect. Many high school debaters go onto be lawyers, politicians, and activist leaders - the habits you build in round may very well determine how good of a world we can create in the future. If a politician was arguing about a policy on CSPAN the way you do in-round, would you approve of them?

- Ideally, policy debate should be approached as if what the problems you're arguing about can really, truly be solved by your policy choices in-round; if this were true, you would want to seek as much education on potential solutions as possible. If your solution is better, your policy position should win - but above all else, we should try to cultivate maximally educating environments in-round so that we can work together to discuss the best possible policy position for our fellow human beings. THAT is why we're here, and is infinitely more important than any trophy or medal you'll ever win. Learn how to approach debates this way, and you'll shape the world around you for the better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINAL NOTE:

Have fun, learn something, and be kind. Good luck!

This is my second-year judging debate. Please present clear and well-organized thoughts and presentations. It doesn’t really matter how great your argument is if I cannot understand you. Speak clearly and slow down. Be kind and exhibit good sportsmanship throughout the debate. Be respectful of time and others and don’t forget to enjoy the fact that you are participating in a state tournament.

Please add me to the email chain for all speeches/ev, and email with any questions: hilary.griggs@yale.edu

For KSHSAA state- PLEASE do not go over time. I have had to interrupt debaters in every round I have judged about going over time in CX and in speeches and it is frustrating :)

Background:

I debated policy all through high school in KS and now coach parli to high schoolers in a UDL.

Speed:

I’m comfortable with whatever, as long as you signpost and are clear with tag lines, plans, and other particularly important bits (CP texts, theory, perms, etc.). I think that effective debate can happen at any speed, but don’t push it.

General:

I spent a lot of time in high school being annoyed by my judges. I don’t want to be one of those judges, and so I keep my paradigm short. I think that, at its core, debate is about persuasion and cleverness, and I am open to anything from both teams. More than anything, I value clarity, good argumentation, and impact turns.

Other fun facts (for my policy debaters):

T:

I will vote on T. I agree with most standard T rules like: run interpretation, violation, standards, voters; T is not a reverse voting issue, it is a priori, etc. But, again, I need aff/neg to make these args in-round.

DA’s:

Please, for the love of god, run your DA’s right. UQ, link, internal link, impact. I genuinely do not care if your DA is the most generic thing alive; if you have a good link card, I’m in. Argue that.

CP’s:

I love counterplans. I think they are a great way to be creative in a round and really push the aff, but they do need to meet the minimum requirements of mutual exclusivity, net benefit, etc. I think debating against a CP can be fun for the aff, too… perm do both.

K’s:

If you run a K or a K aff in the Kansas open circuit, you already get points for bravery. I’ve read my fair share of theory, and I think that k debates can be really interesting and productive. That said, if you run a K, I expect you to know your lit and to argue it effectively. I am not inherently impressed by K args, so it’s entirely up to you whether or not running a K is effective. That being said, framework is incredibly important in this case. A generic policy aff will beat the world’s most beautiful Cap K if they win on framework.

Introduction

I'm an undergrad at Kansas State University studying psychology. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school - growing up in Kansas, most of my experience was at smaller local tourneys but I also competed at a decent number of bigger tournaments and was successful at the state level each year (including a 2-speaker championship my senior year). I've been judging ever since I graduated, and I love it! I'm comfortable judging any style you want to throw at me (however, the fact that I'm not debating in college should give you some insight into what style of debate I find most palatable).

General judging philosophy

I want you to tell me what to vote on. I strive to go into each round tabula rasa to avoid bias (which I believe is very important for judges with experience). If I don't get anything from you, I usually default to policy maker. I definitely have opinions of my own (as you'll see in this paradigm), but I only judge based on what is presented in-round and try to keep my own opinions and beliefs out until I need to.

Speed/presentation

Spread like crazy only if you can do it and only if you're doing it for a reason. I'm not against spreading, but it's up to you to do it well. Be careful, though - if I can't understand you, you're defeating the purpose of spreading.

Even if you do spread, you should still follow basic guidelines of presentation. Clear tags, variation in tone, and especially clear citations (I expect to be able to understand the card's author's last name and year of publication at the very least). These things go double for the 1AC and 1NC! 1ACs should be well-rehearsed and 1N speakers should have their go-to DAs, Ks, or T-shells polished up pretty well. I also expect well-presented weighing and conclusions in the 2AR and 2NR.

Relying on jargon is generally lame. I understand debate jargon, but I would prefer that you use real words. Saying things like "condo" when you mean "conditionality" is just as goofy as saying "poggers" out loud. I won't dock you speaks for using jargon, just consider this a tip.

Case

I won't lie, case debate is the most entertaining part of this activity for me. It's valid to run an aff without advantages, but to do so is to leave tons of aff ground on the table. I really dislike massive, sweeping advantage or disadvantage impacts. A minor education plan will not solve racism, and a small prison reform will not cause nuclear war. I guess what I'm saying is that your impacts have to make sense, otherwise your credibility breaks down.

Here's a few specific case-related paradigms:

- If there is not some kind of impact-based argument, then your other arguments will most likely fall flat. Keep in mind that critical arguments can still have impacts.

- You absolutely need to win a DA to win a CP.

- Elements of the neg do not need to be consistent with each other (i.e. a DA with a big impact does not automatically invalidate T on substantially)

- I am OK with both linear and unique advantages and DAs, and I appreciate clarification for which type you are running.

- I won't stop you from running any type of CP, though I will warn you that PICs, consult CPs, and funding/enforcement CPs aren't very persuasive to me.

- I love good impact calculus. Weighing the round for me is the best way to make sure I vote on what you want me to vote on.

Topicality

I don't think I've ever voted purely on T, but in some cases I've really wanted to. The problem with T is that people often don't know how to run it. I am extremely familiar with the workings of a topicality argument. If you don't understand the mechanics then chances are low that you'll win on it.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding T:

- I prefer very specific definitions. I can't tell you how bored that Webster definition of "substantially" makes me.

- Your violation is the centerpiece of your topicality shell. If your violation reduces to a circular argument like "they're not substantial because they aren't substantial" then you're not going to get me to vote on it.

- Aff reverse voters hardly ever work. I am totally cool with you running non-voters and reverse voters (i.e. "you shouldn't vote neg on T, but their T strategy provides reasons to vote aff), but only running reverse voters is a bad idea.

Kritik

Once upon a time, I was a freshman in high school running a case about reducing surveillance of FDA workers to end the suppression of whistleblowers within the organization. Neg team ran race K, fem K, and bataille K. Does that sound ridiculous? it was.

I will be completely blunt with you - most kritiks are lame. It pains me to say that, because I like Ks a lot. I think I was the first person in the history of my high school to run a K, much less win a round on one. The problem with most kritiks is that people tend to vomit them up as time-sinks without even trying to prove their link. This is a blatant attempt to trick the judge into voting for you because you use big kid words. This does not work on me - in fact, it's the fastest possible way to turn me against you.

Here's a few of my specific paradigms regarding Ks:

- Just like T, structure is incredibly important.

- K of debate is inherently hypocritical as you're trying to win a debate round with it.

- K of case is the safest bet with me as it is the easiest to link.

- You will not be able to convince me that performative debate doesn't deck education. I don't want to see it. However, I will hear a legit K of P if the link makes sense (this is what I did in HS so I have a soft spot for it).

- Just because I focus on links doesn't mean your alt doesn't have to be pretty close to perfect for me to vote on it alone.

- Critical affs can be interesting. Again, I am in no way opposed to the concept of critical debate!

Theory

Again, I have hardly ever voted specifically on theory. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear theory. I used to run it all the time. If there is abuse in the round, I won't vote on it unless the abused team knows to check it on the flow - this is frequently done with theory arguments. I prefer debate to be more down-to-earth, so theory arguments that are way out there are off-putting to me.

Miscellaneous

- Both teams should divide duties equally. The speaker order is the way it is for a reason. Debate is a team activity for a reason. I find that I almost always vote against teams that don't divide responsibility well. I won't vote on your team dynamic (hey, I don't know y'all) but it's in your best interests to work as a team. This especially goes for neg teams - I expect both constructives to be packed full of new arguments. If the 1NC leaves the 2NC with nothing to cover, then the 2NC is a waste of 8 minutes.

- Fill your time. This is mostly a problem for new debaters, but I see minutes of speech time left on the table in open rounds too. I touched on this a bit in the previous point, but debate is healthiest when both teams are filling up their speeches.

- I flow, but I'm not really a flow judge. If a team drops something, I'll notice, but I won't vote on the drop unless the other team calls it out and analyzes why the drop necessitates victory.

- I have a very strong nose for generic attacks. If your aff case/DA/K/anything else is straight out of this year' Northwestern debate camp or Baylor Briefs or whatever, I'll know. Generic attacks can serve you well if you back them up with original thought and great link analysis, but they can also be used very lazily in place of original attacks.

- I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks. Do not try to make your opponent seem like a bad person. Do not try to make your opponent seem stupid. Debate is an artificial space created to explore ideas - sometimes, people are forced to argue things they do not necessarily believe. I will give you bad speaks if you mistreat your opponents.

- Be clever, but always argue in good faith.

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

If I am judging you, then I want your docs. Please set up an email chain and include me (Brendajeffjackson@earthlink.net). AFF should have their 1AC ready to send at the start of the round. I will not keep up with time and I expect debaters to keep each other accountable for speech and prep time.

COVID Online Debate

Issues with clarity and diction compound when listening to debates online. Please speak clearly and do not spread.

Background

1) Did you debate in high school?

Yes – four years

2) Did you debate in college?

No

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

0

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

5

Preferences:

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

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

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

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

· Stock issues emphasis

· Policy maker emphasis

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

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

b. Moderate contest rate - faster speed discouraged.

IV. Counterplans are:

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

V. Topicality is:

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

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

Other

Please present clear roadmaps at the beginning of each speech so I can get a chance to write them on my flow. If I cannot hear or understand you, then I cannot understand your arguments. If I cannot understand your arguments, then I cannot vote for you.

Please keep a level of decorum and respect. Condescending behavior will not be tolerated and I will significantly lower your speaker points.

Teams should slow down and clearly articulate standards for why I should favor their arguments. I really dislike teams that read directly from their blocks if there is not a direct response to specific arguments. In other words, teams that directly respond to their opponents’ arguments will fare better than teams that just assert an argument and make me do the work for them.

I was a debate coach for ten years. I have judged many debates over the intervening years. This year I judged our league debate tournament.

My paradigm revolves around stock issues. I like arguments that are well organized and that are attached directly to the affirmative case. I do not like generic DA's unless there is a very good link to the specific case.

Speed is not a problem as long as the speaker can be understood.

I will flow and vote on stock issues. The Aff has the burden of proof and needs to win all stock issues to win the round. I prefer strong arguments over speed. Also, be sure to signpost and make clear where your arguments apply on the flow.

I debated for two years in high school, but I was better at forensics. I was a theatre major in college, and I took enough persuasion classes, etc., to get certified to teach debate and forensics, but for about twenty years, I had only taught theatre. This is now my fourth year of coaching debate. I will not be insulted if you remind me of the rules of debate as you're making your rebuttals. For example, it would be okay to say something like the following: "Since the negative team only has to win on topicality, and we've done this and more, you must vote for the negative."

First and foremost I consider this a speech event, so clarity and good pacing is important.

I like debates about stock issues and on case arguments. I do not like K. at all. Counterplans are okay as long as you make sure to address the aff completely and know that I will expect a very logical reason I why I should vote for the CP. I like a clearly laid-out A1 with a road map that is easy for me to flow. CX is extremely important and I don’t like questions that are time fillers or simply ask to repeat plans unless the aff is unclear.

A good DA is great but be sure it goes beyond the generic. And PLEASE don't go apocalyptic!

Stay topical or prove the Aff isn’t beyond just saying that it isn’t. Make me believe.But aff needs to address T if it is brought up.

Be sure not to drop arguments in your rebuttals and don’t bring in new evidence.

If you can be logical, clear and concise, and respond to all arguments you stand a good chance of winning.

I appreciate respectful behavior and disapprove of rudeness or directly dressing down your opponent.

1) Did you debate in high school?

No

2) Did you debate in college?

No

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

none

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

4-5

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

I. Which best describes your priorities in judging debates?

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”)

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

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

IV. Counterplans are:

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

V. Topicality is:

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

VI. I find generic disadvantages:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

VII. I find kritiks:

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.

FORENSICS:

I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...

DEBATE:

3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.

Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.

My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.

Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.

Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!

Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.

Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.

Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).

Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?

Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.

Speaker points-

There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:

1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)

2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.

3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.

4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.

I am pretty traditional. I like debates about stock issues. I do not like critiks at all. I also dislike counterplans, but would consider a good one. I like a clearly laid-out A1 where the speaker actually tries to present the case into the camera. Organization is also important. I give weight to how well cross examination is handled. I typically consider running generic DAs as a waste of time for the negative.

I use she/her pronouns.

I am a debate coach, so you don't have to explain to me your terminology, but I expect you to clearly explain your arguments.

Include me in the evidence sharing chain: osilverman@sacredheartknights.org

Fair debate:

I like a fair and educated debate. Please share your evidence (preferably - right away, certainly - upon request). Teams should refrain from insulting each other, using not-PC language, yelling and intimidating opponents, and make racist and sexist arguments.

Speed and Flowing:

I don't like spreading; reasonable speech is fine, but be aware that I am an auditory person and I need to hear what you have to say, so I need to understand what you are saying.

Organize, label, and signpost clearly. Give me a roadmap.

Voting:

I will vote for Aff or Neg that convinces me that the other side lacks evidence or logic.

I will vote on any of the stock issues, including inherency.

I like sound Ts, but they must be structured and justified. Aff must answer Ts properly, no matter how outlandish they are, or I will vote Neg.

I will vote on a CP if it is advantageous, but I will gladly weigh a justified Perm.

I will vote on DAs if Aff is unable to answer them. I prefer probable DAs, but you can run whatever is your best shot, as long as it's properly linked.

I detest tempered evidence: misleading tags and unfair cutting. I love to hear evidence analysis. If a team questions the quality of evidence, be specific and purposeful. I don't care if their card is from 1957 and yours is from yesterday unless you'll tell me why it's a problem.

I will vote on Ks if you can understand and explain them. I will not vote on dehumanizing Ks or those that Neg cannot clearly articulate.

Your rule of thumb with me: show me your strength and run what you know how to do well. I will vote for a more educated and better-prepared team, provided that they do not abuse the merits of this activity.

Pronouns: he/his

stegman76@gmail.com

I used to 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.

Congratulations on making it to the state tournament! It is an honor to represent your school and yourselves. I wish you the best of luck this weekend.

Debate Experience: First year judging debate. Have 20+ years of internal auditing experience and basketball refereeing experience, so I am familiar with evaluating situations from multiple perspectives, listening to arguments and making decisions.

Please introduce yourselves and what school you are from and please enunciate clearly. This speaks to the confidence and pride you carry yourselves with. Similarly, speak slowly enough and clearly enough when presenting your case. If I can’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t possibly judge for your side. I also ask that you present your case, rather than read it. Suggest making the most of your prep time to familiarize yourself with the material so you can summarize it rather than read it.

Just as I would evaluate a basketball play or internal audit finding, I listen and observe the cases being made by each side. I am very open-minded in my judging and do not rush to judgment, rather wait to see how well you present your case, rebuttals and answer questions. I am not inherently for or against counterplans, kritiks or topicality, just ask that whatever you do, do it well and make a strong case for it. Being an auditor, I am more persuaded by logos, with ethos being a close second and pathos being a distant third. (Interpretation: presentation is important, but you can’t charm your way out of a weak case)

Last but certainly not least, Sportsmanship is of the utmost importance. Compete like crazy and be kind while doing it.

I am a policy judge. The AFF will win if they convince me that their plan is good policy. The NEG will win if they convince me that maintaining the status quo is the better policy. I have significant debate experience, so I understand debate quite well.

I've judged roughly about 10 tournaments at the high school level over the years. I'm open to whatever style the speakers prefer.

Please add me to any emails at jlc20me@gmail.com. I prefer speakers keep their own time.

Stock issues are important. However, I am very flexible and feel I can adjust to whatever is presented. Do what you did to get you here.