Primary Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Secondary Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

JUDGES MUST CARRY COMPLETED SHEET WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE TOURNAMENT.

Any debater may look at this sheet prior to beginning each debate round.

JUDGES INFORMATION SHEET

Name Mark Bergmann

City Fort Scott State KS

School Letter Judge

Community Judge

School Number Judge

1) Did you debate in high school? Yes No

Number of years 0

2) Did you debate in college? Yes 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? 2

5) List tournaments where you have judged this year: National Qualifiers

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

C 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.

B 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

C 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.

B 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.

B 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.

A VI. I find generic disadvantages:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

B VII. I find kritiks:

a. Reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.

b. Acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.

c. Generally acceptable.

I have an audio processing disorder, extremely fast speech is nigh-impossible to parse.

As my experience with debate is primarily in LD and PF, I prioritize quality of argument and rhetoric over hardline adherence to stock issues. 

Stock 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.

Policy/lay focus. Be civil and respectful. Need solvency and plan emphasis. T is okay but not a focus. Please no nuke war DAs. Prefer a deliberate, logical, and easily paced communication style over a spread or speed style.

4 years H.S. debate, college forensics All American (2013)

Overall, I sway toward a Policy Making Paradigm. With a heavy emphasis on speaking ability and how well the argument is made. Additionally, I disdain off-time road maps, (if it is important enough to include, please use your time for it).

Former HS debater.

No college debate experience.

Have judged 1 virtual tournament on current topic.

Topicality arguments seldom win me over, unless they are blatant violations.

Disadvantages are fine, but please provide a very clear link.

Counterplans are fine, but please don't "throw something on the wall to see if it sticks."

I've read the rules. I follow the rules. Sometimes I'll reference the rules, and I may even quote them on ballots from time to time.

As judges, it's not our job to make or "interpret" rules, yet as I browse the paradigms of other judges, many would seem to disagree. That doesn't bode well for any hopes of consistency or outcome integrity at the highest levels of our sport.

My ballots reflect my evaluation of the competition within the context of the parameters prescribed by the rules, e.g. you can do X or win/lose due to Y. They are not weighted towards any individual agenda or personal preference.

Experience: I am an experienced debate judge and past competitor. I have judged > 7 tournaments, including State; I competed in State 2-speaker Novice and Open.

Speech Terminology & Speed Preferences: I am comfortable with either lay or technical terminology. I prefer articulated speaking; speak as fast as you want, but be sure your speech is understandable and appropriately expressed in terms of your speaking abilities. I appreciate argumentative and stylistic skills equally - a team must understand and be able to explain their arguments thoroughly. It is very important to understand what you are bringing to the debate. I highly value summaries of arguments at the end of speeches that connect the evidence and points together.

Flow: I keep a flow focusing on key arguments and sources. I value quick roadmaps (<10 sec) that list the order in which you address your points. Cross-Examination is not included in my consideration on the ballot, but a point in which teams can clarify points and/or raise questions for them to address in a proper speech.

Specific Decisive Critieria: Your overall understanding of the issues within the Debate, realistic implications, and defense/offense with the competing team aid in my decision of the round. I value Impact Calculus - Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe - in my decision. Stock Issues - Inherency, Solvency, Plan, Harms/Advantage - must be maintained by the Affirmative as per the Burden of Proof, just as the Negative must effectively argue against the Affirmative as per the Burden of Rejoinder.

Negative Strategy: I prefer that the Negative team, if they are inclined to run off-case, does so in the 1NC. With the priorities that Off-Case arguments uphold (i.e. Topicality, Disadvantages, Counter-plans, Kritiks), it is most appropriate for the Negative to run these arguments first, if at all.

Be kind to each other and value the education of debate and respect the discussions within. Understand that these are real-world issues and what the implications of your arguments are.

I look for strong debating, good policy, and a good defense of that policy. Not a fan of counterplans. Topicality is important. I do not like ridiculous harms like nuclear war. Strong debating, good speaking skills are what I like to see.

I will flow, but I am a policymaker judge. Make sure your plan has real-world potential. Assume I am a lay judge.

Topicality is an acceptable argument

I do not like speed - keep a conversational pace

CP's are acceptable and K's are alright in very rare circumstances.

Good Luck

Stock Issues Judge, but I also vote upon what you tell me is the most important in the round.

For topicality on the Aff, make sure your case is topical and if not, make sure you have a well planned defense for it. For the Neg, I don't just want to hear your definition, I need to hear why the specific case you are attacking does not fit the definition. If you are going to push your standards and voters, please make sure you flow them throughout the round.

Even as a Stock Issues judge I love a good DA, just make sure that your link makes sense.

If you run Kritiks without knowing how to properly run them, I will vote against you.

I tend to be a stock issue judge, but I also want solid policy.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans or K's but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them but please don't run one if you don't know how to do it well.

Speed doesn't bother me. If I can't keep up for some reason, I will let you know. Spreading as a tactic to avoid clash is not going to be in your best interest with me.

I have been a coach for 5 years.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

Experience

4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005

4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011

7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)

4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres

Policy:

I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.

I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.

I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.

LD:

I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).

PFD:

I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.