Not really sure how to use the multiquote funciton so I am going to respond to everything straight down. I will say that I am not sure which of your responses is supposed to be a joke; some of the answers are so ludicrous that I can only assume that you are not serious, but I am will respond nonetheless. Perhaps our views of the value of debate are just irreconcilable.
A2: Time Disad
I feel like you ignored what was said in the original post. You are making impact arguments without establishing a link. At KCKSCFL, every single round has to be power matched. This requires 30ish minutes between each round. During this time, it seems entirely feasible that a judge could turn in their ballot, return to disclose their decision and give comments, and finish that whole process well before the next round pairings are put out.
A2: Coach Can't Hear Comments
Why can the coach not go in and listen to the post round discussion? If it is so important for the coach to hear what was said, why can he/she not have the debaters record the decision either through a camera or by transcribing the decision and comments? If this all falls through, why can the coach not go find the judge later in the tournament and ask him/her what their thoughts on the round were? These all seem like basic remedies to this problem. Also, I think that the pedagogical net benefit of allowing this discussion outweighs the impact of the coach feeling left out of the discussion, but more on that later. You have said: "The judge is not your coach. Their job is to give a decision, not to make you better. " I certainly hope that you are not serious about this. Sure, the job of the judge is give a decision but to say that they should not help make the debaters better is sad. If a judge wants to go out of their way to give comments to the debaters to help them become better, why should they not be allowed to? I just really think that this statement shuts down a lot of positive education that could happen.
A2: Accountability is Insulting
I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. I don't think that this is a reason that post round discussions should be prohibited. I understand that you are a great judge but it seems that a lot of judges would have the inclination to think for just a little longer to make sure that they have answers to every question that the debaters might ask them about their discussion. Good job if this doesn't apply to you! You have said "And as a judge, Iâ€™m particularly upset when I student believes they have the right to challenge my decision." This is one of the things I take most issue with your post about. Why should a student not have the right to challenge your decision? I know that you are an experienced judge but I have observed you make decisions that have perplexed me greatly and that I am 99.9% sure you have been wrong about. Because you are such a good judge, no one should be able to challenge the way that you resolve a round? Seems a little absurd.
A2: "I would suggest that the head coaches who have dedicated their lives to the education of students both in their time and their investment in degrees to education students have a better grasp on what is the most educational way to run tournaments and what is best for students. "
Several issues with this statement. First, I don't think this disproves the value of post round discussions. Unless a coach watched a debate, it seems mildly plausible that the judge who watched the debate would have some insightful comments on the round that the coach couldn't provide. Second, I just think that you are wrong. Yes, Kansas debate coaches are great and understand a lot but I think that a lot of the regional assistant coaches, college debaters, and community members have a better understanding of the way that contemporary debate is evolving and thus are able to better educate students they judge than the coaches of the students are.
A2: "I would disagree that students have some kind of positive right to getting more insight into the decision than what is on the ballot. "
No one said that the students have a right to this. But if the judge is willing to provide it, it seems silly to shut down the possibility of this educational exchange.
A2: " I would also disagree that the organizers of the tournament have any obligation to explain themselves. They are the ones that put forth the effort to organize and allow the students the opportunity to even have debate rounds. If the students donâ€™t like the rules, by all means they donâ€™t have to attend."
Wow. I guess we just really disagree about things. Just because someone is vested with a position of authority and responsibility does not mean that they should be considered infallible. There are lots of people who do noble things but that should be questioned. For example, congress puts in massive amounts of time and energy to do their jobs. Does that mean that we should accept what they do without question? Absolutely not. Kansas debate coaches deserve a lot of respect for what they do but they have made a ton of decisions that I believe are not good for the activity or the education of students. This unquestioning faith in a system is the kind of logic that allows atrocities to go unquestioned. Certainly it is not on the same level, but shutting down criticisms just because they are not what the coaches want to hear seems wrong. So yes, I do think that coaches have an obligation to justify decisions that they make that affect the entire community.
A2: Not the same as NCFL
Who cares? NCFL is not a very good tournament either but we have the power to affect the qualifier. Also, at NCFL, you can talk to judges after they turn in their ballots so the link to this arguments isn't true.
I am sure that you will not like some of the answers I have provided but I think that this is one of the things that you are opposing just to oppose. I would ask you to step back for just a minute and think if you really believe that judges talking to debaters after rounds is destructive to the activity. I think that you would be in just an unbelievable minority to think this.
A caring community member.