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.

Debate: I debated four years in high school (1977-1981), and one year at university (1981-1982). I am a tabula rasa judge. I generally accept any arguments regarding the aims and methods of academic debate. Absent such arguments, I assume the point is decide whether or not to adopt the resolution.

I do believe, however, that debate is an educational activity. I therefore construe good speaking to be that which will work later in life. The law courts and the political stump, the classical models for debate, still frame my view of the activity.

I do not read speeches. I only listen, although I may ask to look at evidence after a round. The speeches should therefore be intelligible.

Finally, I base my understanding of debate rules on the published KSHSAA rules. I do not see how rules informally promulgated by the debate community can bind contrary to the official rules. Absent cogent arguments to the contrary, I therefore believe that each team has two constructive speeches, meaning new arguments can be raised in 2AC and 2NC; that rebuttals are a place for new evidence on points already raised; and that the Affirmative bears the burden of proof and the Negative enjoys a presumption.

Forensics: I did not compete in forensics, but I have served as an assistant forensics coach. I have judged at about a dozen tournaments. There are still some events I have not judged. I look for clear, articulate presentation, convincing acting in events stressing that, and good organization of material. In the more rhetorical events, such as Impromptu, Original Oration, and Extemporaneous Speaking, I listen for distinct thesis statements and good topic sentences, with effective transitions between topics.

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.

Stock Issues

speechdrop is preferred but I understand using alternative methods

I have two years of debate experience and 3 years of experience in forensics from Nickerson High School.

I am open to just about any type of argument so long as you do it both right and well.

Stock issues are very important to me.

Topicality is a BIG issue for me, I do not like it as a time suck, but I love it when it is actually relevant. losing topicality will lose you my ballot every time.

Maintain good sportsmanship, if you are overtly rude to the point the debate now feels hostile, you will lose my ballot.

I do not mind any speaking pace so long as it is clear and understandable.

I do not mind K's of any sort, however I am decently unfamiliar with most, so explain your reasonings clearly.

do not leave arguments unanswered, it will not work in your favor for my ballot.

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).

As a judge for Lincoln-Douglas debates, my primary goal is to assess the arguments based on their logical coherence, persuasive power, and adherence to the fundamental principles of debate. My approach is flexible and open to a wide range of resolutions, provided the debaters effectively support their values, articulate coherent arguments, and maintain a clear and organized flow throughout the round.

1. Values and Criterion

   • Values: I am open to any value framework as long as it is well-explained and consistently supported throughout the debate. The debater should clearly articulate why their value is the most important and how it relates to the resolution.
   • Criterion: The criterion must logically connect to the value and provide a clear mechanism for weighing the arguments in the round. It should help clarify how the value can be achieved or upheld through the debater's case.

2. Argumentation

   • Relevance and Soundness: Arguments must be relevant to the resolution and logically sound. I look for clear, evidence-backed claims that are directly tied to the value and criterion.
   • Clash and Rebuttals: Effective engagement with the opponent’s arguments is crucial. Debaters should address their opponent’s points directly and provide clear, logical refutations.
   • Impact Calculus: Clearly explain the implications of your arguments. Why do they matter? How do they weigh against your opponent's impacts? Provide a comparative analysis to show why your impacts should be prioritized.

3. Organization and Flow

   • Structure: A well-structured case with clear signposting helps me follow the argumentation more easily. Make sure to outline your main points clearly and refer back to them during the round.
   • Flow: Maintain a logical and coherent flow throughout the debate. Ensure that each argument connects back to your overall value framework and criterion. Effective use of transitions and signposting is highly valued.

4. Presentation and Style

   • Clarity and Persuasiveness: Speak clearly and at a pace that is easy to follow. Persuasive delivery can enhance the impact of your arguments.
   • Professionalism and Respect: Maintain a respectful tone towards your opponent and the judge. Professional conduct is important and reflects positively on your overall performance.

5. Core Debate Adherence

   • Focus on the Resolution: Ensure that your arguments stay focused on the resolution and do not veer off into irrelevant topics.
   • Consistency: Stick to your value framework and criterion throughout the round. Inconsistencies or shifts in your argumentation can undermine your credibility.

• Value and Criterion: Are they well-explained, logical, and relevant to the resolution?
• Argumentation: Are the arguments sound, evidence-backed, and effectively refuted?
• Clash and Rebuttals: How well does each debater engage with and counter the opponent’s points?
• Impact Analysis: Are the impacts clearly explained and comparatively weighed?
• Organization and Flow: Is the debate easy to follow with clear signposting and logical progression?
• Presentation: Is the delivery clear, persuasive, and professional?
• Adherence to Core Debate Principles: Do the arguments and strategy remain focused on the resolution and consistent throughout the round?

As a judge, I am open to any resolution as long as the values and arguments are well-supported, logically coherent, and effectively presented. By focusing on clarity, sound argumentation, and maintaining a strong connection to the core debate principles, debaters can earn 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.

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

I debated for a little over 6 years, 4 in high school and 2 on the collegiate level. I would say that I am close to being a stock issues judge, but overall, I prioritize respect in the round. :)

I will weigh stock issues primarily but will take into consideration speaker ability. Topicality needs to be clear and convincing. Counterplans had better be clear and necessary. Please have evidence ready to share so as not to waste time.

TLDR - 2023 Update (Nov 22, 2023): Debate well. Don't drop arguments. Don't be mean. If both teams do something wrong. each of you gets equal leeway (only applies to dropped args, not being an -ist). Run what you want to run, I'm good for a lot just say it more than once if you want me to care, don't leave it in the 1NC and expect me to just pick it up in the 2NR. Stock issues are not my favorite as an argument on its own without justification. That goes with any argument, if you are willing to make it, be ready to justify it with warrants, analysis, comparison, calculus, and explanation as the debate progresses. If you have time, this video is great on how I and many other judges feel about judging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5RTXQemPs&ab_channel=BillBatterman

Me - Pronouns He/Him: Computer Science Undergrad @ K-State,

Background: Currently with K-State College Policy Debate, 4 years HS Policy, 4 years Congress, 1 year PFD

Qualifications for the topic (2023):
I have judged at least 10 rounds this year on the topic throughout the semester and worked at the K-State Debate Camp. Don't assume I know enough about your aff or your DAs to throw around jargon like GND and JG a billion times without ever saying what your acronyms mean.

Contact info:

Contact me with any questions after the round: djrdec30+judging@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain if that is what you decide to use for file sharing. I don't care if I get documents before the speech. I want to have them in case there is a dispute in the round.
UPDATE: I have used and love speechdrop too. If you all decide to use speechdrop.net then make sure I get the code for the same reason I want to be on the email chain.

Evidence DISCLAIMER: Do not expect me to read all of your evidence in depth after the round to make my decision. If you want to dispute something, make it known. If you want me to remember it, say it in your rebuttals. For novice I give some leeway but if the other team is better with keeping a clear and consistent story they will likely win.

Defaults:

I default policymaker in most cases (see K debate). If you present a K, consider me tabula rasa. If you want me to vote a certain way, tell me and tell me why.

Stock issues alone don't give the negative an INSTA-WIN. You still have the burden to prove why your argument matters. Topicality is a separate issue. Yes it is a stock issue, but it is also a procedural which you need to explain. There is an epidemic of T arguments that have no impacts(education, fairness, ground, clash...) in the 1NC and they often get forgotten later so debaters expect me to just vote that they read a card and the Aff loses, no thanks. Also, claiming "we read a card against their solvency, therefore they must lose" is far less convincing than "this is a terminal solvency deficit that makes it easy for you to vote on a low risk of the disad". Reading something on Inherency that they drop is an easier ballot but explain why, I won't do that work for you.

Example: Saying "they don't have solvency and should lose" when all you read was "companies circumvent" is not convincing. I will weigh that as a deficit to solvency so they likely solve something but not as much as they claim. Now, Inherency can be convincing sometimes. In the water topic, the cases that said "we want to fix lead pipes" were beaten by teams that said "Biden has money and resources for that in the Infrastructure Bill". But again this was the 1AC plan will literally be done in a month. So, unless you can prove 98.9% these things are true, then I'm unlikely to vote on it. If you say Biden could easily pass the plan, then tell my why I can't vote for them because of that. Speed is fine but I get the right to yell clear and stop flowing if you are unclear.

Speed

I will listen to any speed you want to throw at me. The clearer you are the more arguments I will have on my flow. If you do not clearly indicate when you move from one page or card or arg to the next I will do my best but it is your job to make sure my flow is clean and clear. A simple solution is a louder AND, or NEXT OFF, or GO TO ADV 1...

K Debate:

I am a K debater (aff and neg) in college (go 'Cats!), so run what you want but explain it like any other argument. Dumping a Cap K on some 2nd-year debaters and saying Marx will save us all probably is not accurate to your authors, and you likely don't need the K to win either. I'll hear your arguments, but I sometimes hold a lower threshold for teams to respond to the K because many kids in the circuit cannot access that research or coaching. Email me if you have questions. You can see my wiki on the College Caselist Kansas State - RT. Feel free to ask me questions in person because I love talking about debate.

What I want to see:

- Application to the flow: Each argument should go somewhere. If you have a turn, an answer, anything, then you need to tell me: is it on the DA?, is it on the Case?, If so what contention or advantage?

- Do what you have been taught. I prefer you tell me at some point, what that argument either does to the entire round, or what that specific card does for you on that specific place. This is the best way to write my ballot because it makes it very clear who is winning on the flow (instead of saying "we win here because" 1000 times with no reason why).

- Impact Calc: It is never too early for impact calc. Even if you don't have a direct answer to the case or the DA, do impact work. It is the easiest way to generate some defense. Or, you can turn the impact and make it clear why it affects the way I vote, just like anything else.

- I am good with hearing Ks, CPs, DAs, and whatever theory you throw at me. Specifics below

Ks need a full story because you cannot assume I am knowledgeable of your K. I will not judge kick the alt and you need a really good reason why the non-unique links are independent case turns that outweigh if you kick just the alt in the block. (why do I care if literally anyone thinking about policy could link)

CPs should include a full plan text and a solvency advocate (ofc if you have a reason not to, fine but the aff might win the "they don't have an advocate" debate, your choice). Run your theory. I am sympathetic to the neg on Condo. I literally don't know what dispositionality solves, explain it if you want but honestly limiting the amount of conditional advocacies or just saying condo bad seems to be stronger. I am not sympathetic to 1-liner style theory that Kansas debaters love. If its a voter you need to spend time on it. Every trap requires time to be built and set, take the time or I won't entertain it. Perms can be short but it usually doesn't make sense to read 5 perms at lightning speed all 5 words long because you know which one you are going for and I won't vote on "they didn't answer our perms" when they probably read a generic perm answer that is sufficient.

PERM BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example Bad Perm Block: Perm Do Both, Do the CP, Do the Aff, Do the CP then the Aff

Okay Perm Block: Perm Do Both: The US Should do the [1AC] and the [CP text] (At the same time or at different times...)

Better Perm Block: Perm do Both, Perm do the CP (read card the process is the same), Do the CP then the aff: The US should... explain how that works.
Especially in the 1AR, pick 1 perm and really explain how that works and why the CP is not competitive.

THEORY BLOCK EXAMPLES

Example BAD Theory: Conditionality is a reason to reject the team because its unfair for us to answer so many things.
Example GOOD Theory: Interp: Negative teams get 1 condo advocacy... Voting reason for fairness because aff has to contradict itself, time skew harms clash and skews strategy which makes debate an unplayable game causing people to leave... (You get the point, an attempt at warrants and real impacts is there, still short but actually makes sense)

DAs, you can run any impact you want, just tell me how mandatory minimums reform is somehow going to cause a nuclear war. I'll believe you when you walk me through that story, I am a sucker for those. All generic links can and should be articulated in Cross and the Block as specific to the aff. Read your link cards and figure out what about the plan links. Why does fiscal redistribution actually force the IRS to abandon counter-terror operations?

Topicality: run it how you like it. I am okay with the time suck as long as the aff doesn't win on the time suck abuse theory. If your topicality argument doesn't have a definition and a reason why I should vote on it, I'm not voting on it.

What I don't want to hear:

- Drops are important: try your best not to just ignore your opponent's arguments. I am flowing I will notice but if the other team drops it then it is dropped and not in my decision (with some leeway, if you also drop critical stuff then I give your opponent some room). Don't drop pieces of offense in the 2AC or 2NC (I mean don't forget a disad in the 2AC or forget a DA turn in the 2NC that the aff made) but if there were a lot off case in the 1NC I can be lenient to light coverage and more analytics.

- Analysis, not just evidence: I don't want to see a 2AC or 2NC that is just reading ev. I specified above that I at least need to know where it goes and at some point why it affects my decision with a specific claim or whole argument.

If you have any questions please don't be afraid to ask.

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.

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.