Kansas Virtual Debate Series 3
2024 — Online, KS/US
Open Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HidePreferred 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.
I am a Stock Issues judge first and foremost. That means that I hold all four (4) Stock Issues at an equal and high regard in a debate round. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Topicality are the biggest voting issues for me. However, that does not mean that I won't listen to DisAds, Ks, Advantages, CPs or any other argument, they just hold spots within the different Stock Issues.
Disadvantages and Advantages deal with Solvency and Harms to me as they talk about how the plan will make everything better or worse. Counter Plans deal with Solvency and Inherency, and should clash against the plan itself. As for Ks, I am not that familiar with them, however I will listen to them, and take them into consideration. The central issue is the AFFs plan, if it solves the problem (stated in the Inherency), fixes the issues caused by the Status Quo (Harms), and makes the world a better place (Solvency).
I have no problem with Topicality at all, and will listen to all T arguments. However, I do have an issue with restatement of KSHSAA rules. Unless there is an actual infraction of KSHSAA rules, please don't recite them to me. I am a coach, and I am aware of KSHSAA's debate and forensics rules.
As for Forensics. I have a history in Theatre, and will view each performance as a performance. Entertain me. Lead me into the world of the piece. The more you make me look up, and the less I'm holding my pen as a judge, the better your chances are in hitting a 1 ranking.
If it's a speech event (Extemp, Impromptu, Oration or Info), then I will listen to the presentation as if I'm judging a speech in my classroom (I am also a Speech teacher), but more because I expect more than what my Freshmen do.