CKL League Debate 2023
2023 — Sterling, KS/US
CKL Debate Tournament Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideFirstly as a person who has been a highschool competitor, and now on a college team and a coach of this activity I would hope I know the basics, like for example what the stock issues are, and framework, amongst other things so while in round to try to not waste time you do not need to explain these or just most basics of debate.
Am I a policy maker or a stock issues judge? Hmm well for me I'd rather make it a policy issues round and weigh it apon impact calculation but if it's not provided I will default to stock issues.
When it comes to being neg in a round I love off case arguments including multiple DA's and i feel that just one or two will not win you a round. But on the other hand of that I'm not a fan or k's, unless you are really good at explaining why they work in the round and why I should actually care just avoid them like the plague
Please please please do not spread, I do not care how fast you read I can understand most paces and can keep up normally pretty well on the flow, but the moment you start spreading you almost basically are losing round, I simply just can't understand you and it makes the whole round critically less entertaining.
Overall just make this a fun time for everyone, there is no reason to be rude or nasty to others. Just make this a positive and educational experience it's why we are all here
I do not have any experience competing in debate, however, I do have experience observing and judging debate competitions.
I am looking for an organized, clear, concise debate, as well as speakers who are knowledgeable about the information they are presenting.
There is a difference between being assertive and being rude. Stand your ground but DO NOT belittle each other. That will not win points with me
I am looking for a fast pace that is still able to be understood. Make sure to annunciate!
If using kritques, explain thoroughly.
Go into your rebuttals explaining why you should win.
Be confident! Look up from your laptops/papers!
-Cate Gutteridge
My experience:
-Competitor @ Remington HS 2013-2016 (Policy, primarily speech focused IEs)
-Competitor @ Sterling College 2016-2020 (IPDA, platform speeches + extemp)
-Assistant coach @ Nickerson HS 2018-2020 (policy, all IEs)
-Assistant coach @ Ashland HS 2021 (minimal involvement in IEs)
-Head coach @ Ashland HS 2022-2023 (all IEs)
-Head coach @ Nickerson HS 2023- (Policy, Congress, all IEs, minimal involvement in LD and BQ)
2-Speaker Policy:
Please include me when you share the SpeechDrop! I feel like I'm able to be a better judge when I can see your speech as you're giving it.
What type of judge am I? I am a stock issues judge, so I'll tend to weigh the round based on if the aff has supported the stock issues after negative speeches. That doesn't mean that I don't vote on DAs -- if you have a nuke war impact that goes unanswered, that seems like a pretty big harm of the aff plan.
I also want to see kids thinking, not just kids reading (which I see too much of). Read your cards and then give me some sort of analysis to prove to me 1) you understand the argument you're making and 2) it actually competes with the other team's position in some way. Providing this kind of analysis boosts your chance that I'm gonna follow along with your train of thought and potentially vote for you at the end of the round.
New in the 2? If you want to, go for it! But don't just do it because you think it'll make me happy. Just know that I'm fine with it.
Speed? As long as I can understand you and you're telling me where to flow things, go the speed you want to go. If I can't understand you anymore, you'll likely be able to tell because I'll stop writing stuff down on my paper or trying to follow along in the SpeechDrop, I'll just look at you until I can understand you again.
How do I feel about topicality? I'm willing to listen to legitimate topicality arguments, but would prefer you don't just run it as a time suck. I understand that people see that as strategic, but I would really rather hear more interesting arguments. If you can prove legit abuse as the neg, I'll probably vote on it.
How do I feel about DAs? I don't like generic DAs that link to all aff plans. I do like case specific DAs and I love big impacts (like nuke war), so long as you've got an internal link to get me there. If the link to the impact is too big a logic jump, though, I'm less likely to vote on that impact if the aff does a little bit of legwork.
How do I feel about CPs? I really like counterplans when they're run well. I think I'm in the minority of younger judges in saying I don't like when they're conditional. I'd much rather you run a competitive CP that is truly an alternative to the aff plan that I should vote on. If you kick the CP at the end of the round I will be very sad :(
How do I feel about Ks? I have minimal experience in judging K's, so run at your own risk. If you run one, you're REALLY going to have to explain it to me; I'm just not familiar with any K literature. Also, as much as I don't like judge intervention in a round, you are going to have a really hard time selling me on K's that just dunk on debate as an activity. (Along this same train of thought, if you run a justification that in-round fairness doesn't matter because of some out of round benefit, plan on spending some time explaining that because I'm REALLY hesitant to get behind that kind of logic.)
Finally, debate is an educational and professional activity (even if we're here because we think it's fun). When I'm deciding speaker ranks, I'm going to prefer your arguments and analysis's impact on the round more than how pretty a speaker you are. However, kindness is a voting issue. If you do something that is extremely rude or offensive to another debater (it doesn't matter which team!) I cannot and will not reward you with a high rank or the win. I like to see debate rounds. I don't like to see bullying. This activity provides an AWESOME opportunity to create connections with other people. Do not let the heat of the moment take that away from you.
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.
1 year of high school debate experience many years ago but I have since forgotten most of it. I have been actively judging debate since 2021 and do understand stock issues but am no overly technical. I have no preferences for the round or what argument types are used.
-I debated 4 years in high school
-Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of roughly equal importance to me in a debate
-I would say I generally judge tabula rasa
-DELIVERY: I'm good with fairly rapid delivery as long as it is accompanied by clear enunciation; I would probably prefer no spreading
-COUNTERPLANS: acceptable if justified, and if consistent with other elements of the negative approach
-TOPICALITY: rarely important; a violation of topicality must be fairly blatant and very well argued by the negative to win my ballot
-GENERIC DAs: acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed
-KRITIKS: accceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed
I am a former debate coach in central/western Kansas. I tend to vote stock issues. I am not wild about kritiks, counterplans, or "off the wall" topicality arguments, but I will listen. The message is important, but so is speaking style and skill.
Hutchinson High School assistant coach for 2 years running.
Hutch alum 4 time state attendee 2 time nsda nats.
6 years debate experience, debater for Wichita State University.
Just do what makes you happy. Debate is supposed to be fun and teach you new things. I like competitive debates where teams actually care and aren't just reading off the doc. I will be sure to give personal feedback to everyone on ballot and keep a neat flow. Ill go for any strat, weather you play safe and just go da or decide to spice it up and bring out a K is up to you and ill do my best to take in any argument. Don't change your style for me i'll adapt to whatever you throw at me. I do well with speed, not a fan of open crossx for highschoolers.
Please include me in email chains/ speech drop, 70% of you don't know how to sign post.
email: Kaydperd@gmail.com
Good luck to anyone who took the time to read :) <3
I have been judging for 4 seasons.
I have judged around the at debate tournament, league, regionals and at state.
Communication skills and resolution of substantial issues are of roughly equal importance.
The skills emphasis is what best describes my paradigm approach to judging debate.
The speed of presentation I prefer is fairly rapid, delivery acceptable so long as presentation Is clearly enunciated.
Counter plans are acceptable if justified, and if consistency with other elements of the negative approach.
Topicality is fairly important; roughly on par with other major issues in the round.
I find generic disadvantages acceptable if specific links are clearly analyzed.
I find kritiks reprehensible; I prefer specific real world arguments.