Kayla Benson (Miss. Kayla Benson...)

Competitor -- 8 Years (4 Years @ Shawnee Heights, 4 Years @ Wichita State)

Coaching -- 6 Years (2 Years @ Wichita East, 4 Years @ Wichita Southeast)

Current -- Head Coach @ Wichita Southeast High School (Go Buffs!)

Email -- kaylab222@gmail.com (Post-Tournament Questions: kbenson@usd259.net – I check this more often during the week…)

My philosophy towards debate is that it should be a fun, engaging activity that challenges both you and your competitors in an academic environment. As debaters, your role is to develop and present well-thought-out, strategic arguments that foster healthy and respectful debates between both teams. My role as the judge is to evaluate the arguments you present and determine which team has the better arguments. One important thing I've learned through coaching is that I'd much rather watch a debate where participants are genuinely engaged with the arguments they enjoy than see debaters adjust their strategy based on what they think I want. For me, the ideal debate is fun, educational, and thought-provoking. I have only three expectations for every round: 1. Be respectful 2. Defend strong, well-supported evidence 3. Provide direct clash between opposing arguments. If you can meet these criteria, then I am your judge.

I prioritize clear judge instruction and strong argument framing in the 2NR and 2AR, with your final speeches showing why your arguments matter in the broader round. My background is in traditional policy debate (T, CP, DA), but I’ve judged various styles and value an RFD that reflects your key points. While I default to Tech over Truth, dropped arguments are decisive. Truth may take precedence in rare cases of blatantly false claims with real-world implications. That said, 99% of the time, I stick with Tech.

In case debates, I value a mix of offensive and defensive arguments. On-case arguments are often underused but effective alongside off-case positions. For Topicality, include all parts (Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters), and spend the full 2NR on it. Against policy affs, provide a list of topical affirmatives that solve advantages; I’m skeptical of T Arguments without strong evidence of ground loss or a robust case list. For DAs, emphasize how the DA outweighs and turns the case with clear links, and both sides should engage in impact comparison. Counterplans need to clearly solve some portion of the aff and demonstrate a net benefit. For Ks on the neg, have an alt that solves, a clear link, and defend your framework/literature. On theory, I need clear in-round abuse examples. Condo is fine with some limits, but if you want a theory argument to win, it needs full time in the 2AR.

You can spread if done properly, focus on clarity, balanced volume (loud but not yelling), and varying speed: slowest for analytics, moderate for tags, and fastest for evidence. Start slower if I have never judged you before, then progress in speed throughout your speech. Open CX is fine if both teams agree, but both partners must participate equally, or I will dock speaker points. Prep time starts when CX or a speech ends, with a brief grace period for timers, and ends when the speech doc is saved; sending the doc doesn’t count unless it’s excessive or feels like stealing prep. Sign-posting is crucial, use vocal cues (e.g., “Next”) and adjust speed to signal transitions. For argument extensions, explain how evidence applies to the round—saying “Extend Benson 24” without context won’t be flowed.

Also, if you are curious… I wrote out my thoughts/views/attitudes to various aspects of debate in relation to Taylor Swift songs… here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qiwakMBwhjlniGxY0xe6Y88pko5mXs-KuH-BHhXakXE/edit?usp=sharing

Assistant Coach - Maize South High School

2 years policy debate, plus 8+ years judging policy

4 years forensics having competed in every event except LD & PFD and specializing in Oration and Informative

ROAD MAP YOUR SPEECHES. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE GOING ON THE JOURNEY.

DEBATE POLICY, NOT THEORY IN POLICY DEBATE. I CARE ABOUT THE CASE, NOT THE ETHICS.

email for chain: fcaster@usd266.com

Right off the rip, Speech Drop time is prep time. Make sure you keep your prep running until the file is in the Speech Drop. This is why prep was increased to 8 minutes so I want to make sure all teams are following this rule.

I am a policy maker judge at heart. I want my debaters to present a plan for how to solve an issue that is grounded in reality. Don't argue theory about how the world is broken, tell me what actual plans we can put in place to fix a problem. On the neg team side, either show me the squo is good, that the aff plan itself is flawed, or come to me with a better plan than the aff. I just want actual tangible options to vote on, not a bunch of theory. Save that for LD.

Because of this DAs and CPs are the keys to my ballot, along with some on-case attacks. I weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both sides (the plan for the aff and the squo or CP for the neg depending on what route they take) and then decide which one weighs out better. As long as the pros outweigh the cons then I will likely vote for you, though that is not always the case cause as we know each round is unique and nuanced, but that is a general guideline that will lead you to be successful with me as a judge.

One note on CPs, pick ONE and run with it. I really dislike multiple CPs being ran in round, namely cause it comes off as a scatter shot and disorganized attack hoping that the aff just drops one. If you want to run multiple CPs make sure to bundle them under one umbrella and present it as a clear and cohesive plan.

I do not like speed to be used as a weapon. I understand in debate the pace of speaking will be picked up to get all the info in, but if I ever feel that a debater is attempting to speak quickly just so that the opposing team will not hear an argument and then not be able to respond to it, I will judge that critically and penalize you for that. In short, DO NOT SPREAD.

I appreciate when debaters "get off the cards". I want to see debaters analyze their cards and break down their arguments and try to connect with me on a human level rather than just rattle off facts and figures for the duration of their speech.

I am open to Topicality arguments but I want them to be specific. Don't just run T cause you feel like it and don't argue that your definition of "the" is better than someone else's. If you run T it needs to be specific and show that the affirmative is actually harming the competitiveness of the round and being abusive.

For Kritiks, I am not the biggest fan. If you are going to run a K it better be strong and it must tie directly into an overall argument on why the specific aff plan is bad and further perpetuates the issue. In short, I judge very harshly on these and require them to have a strong connection to the topic and the aff for me to vote for them. If not then I just feel you are using them to avoid debating the policy of the round, which goes against what I feel policy debate is designed for.

TL;DR - I want policy to be debated in policy debate. Help me understand the pros and cons of your position in the round and show me how voting for you leads to a larger positive than voting for the other side. Keep things rooted in reality and avoid theory as much as you possibly can.

I worked in radio for 8 years before transitioning to education so I value good communication skills in a round and being able to connect with people as I have spent a chunk of my life honing that skill. Your evidence is important but your ability to properly convey it to me is just as important. I want to see you communicate your intentions of your arguments and where you stand on the issues in the round.

As a reminder this is an educational activity and we are all people just trying to get better and learn things. I understand debate in its very nature is confrontational, but remember that your opponents are fellow human beings just like you and should be treated with respect. Try to avoid being argumentative in rounds and keep it loose.

At the end of the day just have fun!

Experience: Head coach for 9 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events 15+ years.

Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence, BUT I prefer slower and more deliberate pace with especially when it comes to analysis of evidence.

Framework for Evaluating Rounds: I default to policymaker. Please tell me how you would like me to weigh the round. As long as the the framework is real world and not too abstract, I will consider it in my decision.

Positions: I evaluate Topicality roughly on par with other issues in the round. I am fine with generic DA's as long as the links are explained clearly. CP’s and K’s are acceptable as long as text/links are well explained and maintain competition in the round. I evaluate the round pretty evenly between argumentation and communication skills. You have to have both the winning arguments and the ability to communicate them clearly and persuasively.

Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round, I expect to hear case debate and explanations. Please do more than read evidence and/or read blocks. Explain what you are reading, what it relates to in the round, and how it advances your position. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage/counterplan/K if you have never read it before or haven't at least talked to your coach about what it means. Overall, I want to see clash and a debate about substantive issues rather than about how the other side debated. Focus on the arguments not on the opponents themselves.

Hannah Erdman, Wichita East High School Head Speech and Debate Coach

Previous Experience: Assistant Coach for Eisenhower High School, HS Policy Debate, HS Forensics Kid, Kansas State University Policy Debate

- Include me on email chains (both emails):
herdman@usd259.net
erdman.hannah@gmail.com

- Spread is fine. Just slow down on taglines and make sure you signpost. Ask your opponent's preference for spread to keep the debate fair and equitable.

- Tech > Truth, but don't be surprised if I leave some feedback that you have some very obviously glaring falsities in your argument, but overall, I value the structure of the round and will honor the arguments actually made.

- If you don't flow, I'm not flowing. I tend to vote on the flow in a policy maker style.

- Don't pull new in the 2-- I find it cheating.

Novices: Honestly, I really just value that you are in a round and getting it done. Make what arguments you feel comfortable making and do what makes you feel most comfortable. I will help where I can, and I will have patience and grace as long as it does not interfere with fairness and the structure of the tournament. Please know that I give a lot of feedback, so even if I am not looking at you and I am typing, it is because I am writing with the intent that you get better based off of my notes. In addition to that, a lot of novices and competitors have commented that I look like an intimidating, angry judge. I promise I am incredibly kind and personable-- my face is just like that. :) Practice professionalism and kindness as a novice, and you will go far in my book. However, debate is still argumentation, so make sure you give me that clash! Spice it up with some good analytics-- don't just read cards. I really don't like to see framework, theory, and K run in novice, but if you do it, know it through and through. Have fun!

-JV/Open:You are on your way to Varsity! Keep up the good work, here's what I expect out of JV/Open: Trust in your arguments and follow through with them. I am not a huge fan of seeing K, Framework, and High Theory in JV. More K can come through in Open.
Disadvantages: Always a great strat, but I'm not a huge fan of generic disadvantages. You should have a really strong internal link and cards that aren't contradictory, easily turned, or land in a thumper argument. You're here to have fun, and I love to see that, so go for the existential impacts and make it good. I will also deeply appreciate some solid philosophical debate on ethical impacts and the subsequent Impact Calculus.
Topicality: Lowkey, I kind of hate topicality arguments, but I'll listen to them. Just make sure it's not a throwaway argument for you. Many times when I see T run in JV and Open, it's dropped or conceded by the end of the constructives. If you also try to argue fariness and vagueness, then you pull out 3 specific DA's? I really hope the Affirmative catches you on that. Really believe in T and don't use it as a filler argument ("10 off, starting with 5 T" is really a pet peeve of mine.)
Counterplans: Unironically, I do kind of love counterplans, especially ones that challenge the structure of the round and of the affirmative plan. On the flipside, make sure the perm isn't lazy-- really give it some work and push back on it. The only thing I ask for counterplans is that you make it pretty obvious that it's a counterplan and not just some randomly mis-labeled argument that looks like you pulled it from a random file. You're open and JV, you should know what you've got going.

- Varsity: Go crazy in varsity-- you got here, let it all out and have the fun you deserve. The only thing I ask is that you don't get too aggressive in the round. I'm fine with about every argument in varsity: DA, Topicality, CP, K, High Theory, Framework, etc. I am also fine with spread, but please check in with your partner and slow on taglines so I know where you are at in the document. See my comments in JV/Open about DA, T, and CP.
Kritik: I generally love K because I think it adds a certain angle to the debate that you do not see in other rounds. Varsity is a place to experiment and have fun, but even in performatives, K Affs, and other strats, make sure there's at least a thread that links back to the topic. It's hard to prep for otherwise, especially if you're not disclosing earlier than 30 minutes before the round (Debate Wiki).
High Theory: I was in college around the time that high theory became pretty prevalent in debate. As someone that likes to challenge norms and values in a round, I want to see some high theory and rules arguments including some potential negotiation and debate over the definitions/limitations of current rules. I also kind of love some meme debate in varsity, because it keeps it fresh and fun without becoming a verbally violent policy fight.
Framework: Listen, I'm generally acting as a policy maker, but if you want to try to run some paradigm shift and re-define how I vote for the round, that's cool. I like seeing the creative ways in which debaters want to frame the round. It allows for some mental gymnastics that are ultimately good for the soul.

• Any other questions, comments, or argument clarifications can be emailed to me at least 30 minutes before round begins or asked at the top of round.

I am a High School assistant debate coach, as well as a High School science teacher. My background in debate is that debated a few years in High School myself, so please do not waste your time with explaining the rules of debate to myself or your opponents. I believe that all topics are debatable, but ensure that you explain the relevance of your evidence and the connection to the argument. Although you may bring attention to topicality issues, this should not be the center of your argument. I favor sound arguments backed up with multiple sources of scientific evidence, so ensure that you provide clear tags / authors. I do not have a preference for style choices, I am open to all styles of debate. Presenting a thorough case is important, so I need to be able to understand you. Avoid extreme speed reading and burrowing your face into your computer screen. Although this is a competition, be careful with your word choice and "attacks" on your opponents. I do not favor taunting or personal attacks. Stick to the case and the debate topics.