Burgett,+Cindy

Cindy Burgett Policy Coach –Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS 30 years of coaching I judge occasionally, and I watch my own teams’ practice rounds, so while I’m getting old and crusty, I’m not stupid or inadequate. I am familiar with the topic literature and a good number of the affirmatives and negative arguments on the topic.

Paradigm – I prefer a policy making approach to debate, although I will entertain and vote for all kinds of arguments that are well reasoned, well researched, and for which there is actual, honest analysis in the round. Run your K (or whatever other argument) if you want – but if you don’t understand the literature you’re reading, if there’s not a pretty solid and specific link, or if it requires a full paragraph to tag each card you read, I am not likely to be all that impressed. I am not deeply read on critical literature, so you'd better have some fine explanations of those arguments. I expect affs to have a plan text as a general rule. I will do my best to be an objective critic of the round you debate for me.

That said, I am not above finding outrageous behavior to be a reason to vote against a team – or at least a good reason to dock points. How you treat each other and others in the community is important. It shows if you’re having fun, so try to do that.

Speed – I am not as fast as I once was, but if you are clear, you can go pretty fast. Maybe look up once or twice (or have your colleague do it) and see if I’m keeping up. I prefer quick over slow, but if you are über fast, you should probably back off the throttle a bit.

What I like: I want you to actually respond to the other team’s arguments in a direct way. I am tired of the debate in which one team reads their pre-written blocks against the other team’s aff/pre-written blocks, and there is no actual analysis of the things the other team read or said. I like good, specific clash, and it has become rarer, maybe because so many debaters are not very good at flowing any more, and clash is hard if you don't have a good flow. It might be a Christmas Miracle if someone engaged in an on-point case debate of any depth or specificity, but I would sure be impressed if it happened. Debate is more than just data processing in my book, so give me clash and analysis.

Where theory is concerned, I have heard many teams simply throw out some blippy tag lines and, again, offer no real analysis. If you want me to understand arguments the way YOU see them, then tell me about them a bit. I quote a friend: “I feel it takes more than a sentence or sentence fragment to make an argument.” This is as true for a theory argument as it is for any other kind of argument.

I’m ok with counterplans, but if you’re going to get into an intricate theory debate, please, again, some analysis and comparisons are nice. I’m not sure very many are all that competitive any more, but I am sure that there aren’t that many teams who are very elegant in their argumentation on counterplans.

I will vote on topicality, but I’m not a big fan of the arguments on “should,” “the,” “resolved” – you know what I’m saying here, I think. I also don’t think T is genocidal and won’t vote on that argument.

Maybe the best thing you can do is have a clear and coherent story of how all of your arguments fit together and compare to the opposition’s in your last rebuttal – a big picture, if you will. If you have a food fight (arguments splattered all over my flow) and you don’t try to clean that up by the end of the debate, you leave me to wade through what **I** thought was important, rather than what **you** did. You might not like the outcome, but if you don’t do something to control this in the final rebuttal, you will get what I think you deserve.

I don’t like prep time thieves. I will not be terribly patient on this issue, however, or about teams that don’t have decent control of their own technology.

Ultimately I like a round with a bit of style to go with the substance of your debate. It isn't required, but it is looked upon favorably.