As a judge, I prioritize evidence and logical reasoning, which aligns with a Kritikal or Tabula Rasa paradigm. I believe in the importance of critical thinking and challenging assumptions. While I value clarity and organization in debates, I'm particularly interested in debaters who challenge the status quo and delve into the underlying impacts of arguments. For me, it's essential that debaters engage critically with the resolution and present substantive, thought-provoking arguments. I encourage competitors to be prepared to present well-supported, critical arguments and engage in thoughtful discourse rather than relying solely on conventional strategies.

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.

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.

From the standard paradigm sheet:

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

- Policy Maker/Tabula Rasa/Flow. Default to Policy Maker (expect impact calculus).

- Fairly rapid delivery acceptable so long as presentation is clearly enunciated -- very rapid speed discouraged. Speed if you can, don't if you can't.

- Counterplans are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of the negative.

- Topicality is fairly important -- roughly on par with other major issues in the round. I expect standards/voters from both sides, must pull to rebuttals.

- I find generic disadvantages generally acceptable. Prefer specific links.

- I find kritiks general acceptable. Prefer specific links.

General Notes:

- I prefer off-case to on-case, and I generally don't care about stock issues. Since Topicality is flowed off-case, it serves as a prerequisite to on-case debate. Solvency is the only on-case argument that will be used to evaluate the 1AC against any off-case such as disadvantages/CPs/Ks.

- I fully support the use of CP's and K's, 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.

Stock Issues

POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.

EXPERIENCE:

• 4-year high school debater

• Adept hired judge

• Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons

• Mild knowledge of world politics

• Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget

• Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation

SPEED:

• Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech

• Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech

• Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win

• If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped

CROSS-EX:

• Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you

• Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building

• While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote

• Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements

HARMS:

• Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO

• I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.

• Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.

INHERENCY:

• Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO

• Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear

• If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that

• Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is

SOLVENCY:

• Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label

• Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX

• DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card

ADVANTAGES:

• I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.

• Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance

• Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so

PLAN:

• I’d prefer if you have plan planks that explain your funding mechanism, enforcement, etc.

• I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague

• Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX

TOPICALITY:

• I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument

• STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them

• Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it

DISADVANTAGES:

• I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs

• Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence

• Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case

• Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones

VAGUENESS:

• Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target

• Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole

COUNTERPLANS:

• PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something

• Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round

• Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job

KRITIKS:

• I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not

• I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution

• Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that

PET PEEVES:

• I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”

• Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found

• Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend

• Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification

• I dislike ad hominem attacks

4 years of high school debate; state novice, 1 year on state two-speaker, 2 years on state-four speaker. Judged for 5+ years.

Policy-maker.

I like to see impact calc during rebuttals.

I do not weigh an entire round on T alone. You may run it, but know that you will need to make other arguments as well. I don't like K at all. Any other type of Neg argument is fine to run.

Any speed is fine.

This is petty, but I can't stand it when someone says "is anyone NOT ready?" (Consider this a litmus test to see if you've read my paradigm).

I debated four years in high school, and judged off and on since. Head coach at Paola High School.

The threshold for refutation of arguments that I don't like is low, but not zero.

I’ll flow what you tell me, not what’s highlighted on your speechdoc.

If you cut a card for time, make sure you’ve read me the good stuff.

Run whatever you want. Seriously. If you can justify it and defend it, I’ll consider it.

Case debate is good, but I love a great offcase debate.

Theory is fine, and I’m well-versed. However, don’t spend too much time here, as I’ve probably already reasoned this out with you.

T is good but I’ll only vote for it if you run it correctly. This is also true for CPs and DAs. I expect Aff teams to tell me when Neg arguments aren’t structured correctly, but I also expect you to answer them anyway. If there’s no impact card, voters/standards are missing, etc., say so, then move on to your answers.

K’s are fine, but I’m a lot older now than when I used to run them. Be prepared to explain them.

Reading a big block of cards without any analysis from you doesn’t do much for me – in fact, it makes me grumpy.

If I don’t like an argument, you’ll know.

If I’m not flowing your speech, it doesn’t mean I’m not listening, but rather I have already made my decision. I am good at figuring out the round and will likely make a quick decision. However, I will never formally sign or write my RFD until the round is over – sometimes miracles happen.

Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags/dates so I don’t get lost on my flow. If I can’t keep up, I’ll let you know.

Impact calc at the end of the round is good. My RFD should ultimately sound like your 2NR/2AR.

Be kind, have fun, learn something.

To me,

*communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are roughly of equal importance,

*fairly rapid delivery is acceptable so long as the presentation is clearly enunciated, very rapid speed discouraged,

*CPs are acceptable if justified and if consistent with other elements of the negative strategy 

*Generic DAs are acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed

*Ks are acceptable even if inconsistent with other elements of a team's strategy

Substantively, tread lightly IF attempting to mitigate harm. Also, don't overstate/oversimplify complex issues like racism, sexism, discrimination using platitudes. Stylistically, should go without saying, but don't be too clever for your own good and don't be abrasive to your opponent, including personal attacks/insults. Treat one another respectfully, or you may find yourself on the losing end of my ballot.

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.

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).

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Hello! My name is Ruby, and I did debate for all of one year in high school, but have done debate judging a few times over the years since. I assess debate rounds over how much the arguments make sense and how compellingly they are presented. If topicality is actually applicable, I think it can be compelling, but making topicality for the sake of topicality doesn't really make sense. Generic disadvantages are acceptable (not preferred), but present them in a way that demonstrates the connection between that and what the other team is talking about. I will be honest and say I don't quite understand kritikal arguments, but if you can make a good kritikal argument that makes sense, go for it! Talk at a comprehensible please, arguments are really only good if you can understand them, and understanding needs to take into account speed. Most of all, have fun!

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

I am a policy-maker judge by default. I prefer actual communication and good speaking skills over rapid delivery. While I'm not an expert in K debate, I do understand the use of evidence, analysis, and snark. I would suggest that you only use the first two. While you may tell me how I "must vote," this technique annoys me and detracts from your argument. Just be a great communicator.

I Debated 4 years in HS and currently debate in the NFA-LD (1 person policy) circuit at Washburn University. Email is huntersquires4@gmail.com for email chains/more explanation on a decision/questions about NFA-LD and Washburn

I don't have a strong preference in types of arguments. If your argument is better than your opponents and you explain better than them why that gets you the ballot you'll win the round. I like listening to unique arguments so if you've been wanting to try something new or odd out it wouldn't be a bad idea to read it in front of me. Just make sure it makes sense...

Please run whatever arguments you are best at/make the most strategic sense in the round. If you get done reading this and think "He isn't going to like our strat" you are probably wrong and you should read it anyway.

Like most judges, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but everyone has experiences in and outside of debate that influence decision-making. Any judge that tells you they are purely tab rasa should not be trusted, because it is impossible.

The role of the judge is to be mostly robotic, but there are some exceptions. First, I will do my best to protect the 2NR. Second, I may intervene if you are being violent/threatening.

I usually assume that implicit statements/assumptions are true unless they are argued against. For example, if neg reads T and says non-topical affs collapse debate, they are implicitly arguing/assuming that we should preserve this space. If the neg doesn't impact turn that, I assume everyone agrees that the space is good, so I wouldn't say in the RFD "Idk why we need to preserve the space so I'm not voting for the neg on T." That seems pretty interventionist. The same concept applies to extinction, suffering, and whatever else isn't contested.

This logic also applies to things like links. If in the 2AR and 2NR both teams tell me I'm just weighing the impact of CC on the aff's ADV vs. Impact of Econ collapse on the neg's DA, that's what I'll base my decision on, even if I don't fully understand how the aff solves or how the DA link works.

I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. If we are going to have a judge kick debate please give actual warrants. If this debate is one line from both sides I probably will judge kick but don't put me in that position.

But on specific arguments

T- On the neg, make sure I know interp, violation, standards, and voters. Cards are cool, but not totally necessary usually. I lean towards competing interps.

Theory- Like T, I should clearly know the interp, violation, standards, and voters. I like weird theory arguments, and also think they're strategic. I'm very sympathetic to solvency advocate theory.

Case- Defense is good, but make sure you're generating offense because I probably won't vote on presumption except in rare scenarios because try-or-die makes sense.

Disads- I don't really care about specific links as long as you can prove that the aff does link. A lot of the time a specific link will be able to show this better but if the generic link applies I'll value that as much as a specific link.

CPs- Make sure you have a good net benefit for your CP. Presumption flips aff if you go for this. Perms are a test of competition.

Ks- Ks are one of my favorite arguments when ran well. Please just understand what the literature says (or seem like you do) if you're going to run this. I know a lot of lit but don't assume I know your lit. I'm most well-versed in arguments from the Baudrillard vein, especially semiocap. You can also ask me how much I know about your genre of K before the round if that changes anything.

I've found that when I'm looking at a paradigm as a competitor a sliding scale is very useful so I'll implement one into my own.

Policy------X----Kritik

Competing interps----X------Reasonability

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Perf cons bad-------X---Multiple worlds good

Presumption--------X--Try-or-die

Speed good--X--------Speed bad

Cheater CPs good (Consult, delay, etc.)-X---------Cheater CPs bad

Tech--X--------Truth

I will read all the ev----X------You have to point out things you want me to read

Disclosure good-----X-----Disclosure bad

Summary- Run whatever you are the most comfortable running. I think every type of argument in debate has a valuable place. In your last speech tell me what you win and why that makes you win the round. I need to know why to vote for you.

Most importantly, don't make debate a negative space for anybody. Don't be rude to the other team and don't have your objective be to make the other person feel dumb and want to quit. Sometimes one team is a lot better than the other team. If that's the case just be nice, take the W, and move on to the next round.

Being mean is a voter :)

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!

Simply put, I like civil, clean, formal debates where everyone respects the process and each other.

Tech time is prep time. Don't abuse it.

Kritiks are for people who don't actually want to debate the resolution.

Policy Debate: I'm a Stock Issues oriented judge, though I lean towards Policy Maker when there are few adequate Stock Issues in the round.

LD: Stock Issues

Forensics: I have no real preferences outside of sticking to event rules.

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.

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.

Hello!

I debated and competed in forensics all four years of high school. After graduating I have continued to help out with my high school team as my Dad is the coach. Thanks to him, I've been around NSDA (Or NFL as it used to be) since I was little. 

I am a tabula rasa judge. I will judge off of only what is mentioned in the round. If your arguments are structured/run incorrectly etc. I will only consider those things in my decision if your opponent mentions them (I may leave you a lengthy ballot comment however, for education and improvements sake).

I am completely fine with counterplans, theory arguments, and Ks. Topicality usually needs to be substantial for me to vote on it, however if you feel confident you can convince me it is substantial, go for it.

I do not need to be included in any evidence sharing or email chains. I believe that if you convince me of something, then it is true. This means when directly competing evidence is presented, I will often favor the evidence that is presented more persuasively.

Really what this whole paradigm boils down to, is I believe in debate your goal should be to communicate with and persuade the judge to your side. You do that, and you'll have my ballot.

In debate events, my default for any event is tabula rasa.

Tell me why your arguments are important and why they are more important than your oppositions'.

Tell me how I should evaluate the round and give me reasoning why your evaluation technique should be preferred over your opponents'.

I don't mind speed or critical arguments, but clarity is important if you're going to speed.

Roadmaps, taglines, and impact calculi are your best friends.

In acting and speaking events where clash may not be an element, I tend to judge you on performance and piece selection.

Beyond those two points, I tend to ask these questions (not exhaustive) of any performers:

Have you practiced and executed your physical performance? (Blocking, etc)

Have you rehearsed your vocal performance? (Intros, Transitions, etc.)

Have you chosen literature/topics that you relate to? Does the topic allow you to express yourself through interaction with it?

Is your piece respectful of sensitive issues or populations? If not, is there a point? What am I supposed to take away from your performance?

In general, I don't care whether you come in sweat pants or business attire, but please treat others professionally and with respect.