Former PF debater 2005-2006

Former PF coach 2008-2018

I judge on the flow and strive to intervene as little as possible. In summary and final focus, tell me how your impacts compare to those of your opponent.

Try not to get bogged down in minutiae. I very rarely find myself deciding a round on specific pieces of evidence or framework debates.

Treat your opponents with respect. The fastest way to lose my ballot is to be rude or sexist.

Don't spread. A little speed is fine, but remember that this is a public speaking activity. A member of the public should be able to comprehend your speech.

I will flow and consider non-topical arguments, but I should mention that I do not often find them persuasive.

For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

I have been a student debater primarily in Policy debate at Bradley Tech High School, with a few debates under my belt in Public Forum Debate as well. I have judged Policy as well as Public Forum, and primarily Lincoln Douglas Debate for the last 5 years on the Wisconsin Circuit and once at the Glenbrooks.

SPEED:Not a fan of speed, as debaters tend to get very inarticulate when trying to spread other debaters.

FRAMEWORK:I put a lot of weight on framework debates. This is a big voter for me.

KRTIKS: Not much of a fan mostly due to the fact that most debaters can't fully explain one in the short amount of time allotted. Run at your own peril or if you can explain and convince me fully to pick up up on one.

COUNTER PLANS:I usually like to hear counterplans, as long as they have structure and can be explained well to convince me to vote on it.

THEORY: I can listen to it, but most of the time, it won't be enough to guarantee a win, UNLESS you are very convincing in it, AND that is all you have for a particular argument.

DISADVANTAGES: See impacts.

IMPACTS: VERY IMPORTANT! WEIGH...THE ...ROUND!!! Give me voters and extend your impacts please. In the end, that is what will convince me to give you the win.

DELIVERY AND POLITENESS: Have a clear delivery, with lots of clash, and be very polite. I did not like rudeness when I was debating; won't tolerate it now when I am judging. Not a fan of flex prep, where cross ex continues during another person's prep time.

After the round, I can give oral critiques, BUT I DO NOT DISCLOSE! I feel the debaters will follow the comments more if they are not distracted by the win or loss disclosure.

Any other questions, just ask me before the round.

I look forward to judging some awesome debates.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Be respectful.

I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you.

Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

TL; DR: I like debate, be nice, please WEIGH VOTERS/IMPACTS

For me, debate was one of the most important and impactful things I did while I was in high school. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to do debate and we should all make sure debate is as inclusive as possible.

Fundamentally, this is accomplished through mutual respect between and for competitors and judges. Everyone should feel comfortable debating in front of their opponents, their partner, and the judge, and I try to do my part to facilitate that. On the flip side, I have zero tolerance for disrespectful, snide, or patronizing comments, whether that is between students or between students and judges. If you shout at me or your opponent, your speaker points and/or the result of the round will reflect that.

This carries into arguments you might run: don’t run an argument/case just because you think your opponent won’t know how to respond to it. I hate it when people run garbage just because they can (i.e., poorly done meme cases). I’m a flow based judge, but I’ll still tank your speaks for being obscure or esoteric.

On to debate specifics:

To quote Ozan Ergungor--

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn't

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

Speed: I don’t like spreading. Debate is a speech event, please make sure I can understand you! If you think you’re going too fast, you’re going too fast. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you!

Crossfire: I don’t flow cross-ex unless you tell me to. Any arguments need to be included in subsequent speeches (except FF, no new arguments there).

Rebuttal split: The second rebuttal should start to begin to rebuild following the first rebuttal. If you don't, it puts a lot of unnecessary pressure on your partner to rebuild in the summary while also distilling voters and that can get messy.

Summary/Final Focus: Please, please, please, please, please give me voters and why you win the voters as soon as possible, ideally by the summary. Please do not make your summary a rebuttal reprise or a mini-case. Distill and collapse the debate efficiently and identify where the key points of clash are.

Evidence:

1. Give me dates, names, and sources
2. Paraphrasing is okay, but don’t abuse the bracket. Make sure you are accurately and truthfully representing evidence and not performing debate magic on stats and findings.
3. I will only call for a card if it’s being flowed in opposite directions or if either team asks me to (but remember the rules around a formal accusation).
4. I won’t take prep when you ask for a card, but I'll start to run it when you've had a chance to read it. Don’t abuse that though, otherwise I’ll run prep and dock your speaker points.

Miscellaneous:

Keep track of your own speech and prep times. I'll keep track too: if you go 30 seconds over the time limit on either, you can get a maximum of 25 speaker points. Don't steal prep either (i.e., saying "end prep" and then proceeding to take 10 more seconds of prep).

I always vote Pro on the second and fourth weekend of the month, and Con on the first and third weekend of the month. Nah I’m just kidding

PF Debate Judge Paradigm

What school(s) are you affiliated with? Brookfield East

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? Public forum with some policy for four years

How often do you judge public forum debate? Not often

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Just a little faster than conversational

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? I will lean in if I cannot understand what they are saying

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Arguments.

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? Establishing why you have made your case and tying it back to the resolution. Clearly establish what the burden was

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Summary is fine

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Analytics. I want to see critical thinkers

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style.

I want a conversational debate over a formal debate. I want everyone to showcase they have thought about their position and can adequately defend it.

I am a former policy debater and former coach of a nationally competitive policy team back in the early 1990s. I have been out of the activity for about 20 years. My love and respect for the activity is strong even if my actual familiarity with current theory or jargon is weak. My flowing skills are there through a bit rusty and I have no experience with this year’s policy topic. I really love it when people speak clearly and signpost and make my flowing easy - if you do that you can talk as fast as you’d like.

In an ideal world, I might be a little traditional in that I really enjoy when teams focus on the actual policy arguments stemming from the resolution. I want to see clash. I like disads with clear well-evidenced link stories, However, I know that there are many ways to win a round and I am open to most arguments; but, you must do a great job explaining it and assume no knowledge on my part. I strongly want you to give me a clear decision making calculus for the round.

One final note - you can be argumentatively great AND be nice. I have little tolerance for people being mean, nasty or arrogant in a round. Crush the argument AND be a good person.

LD:

Experience:
I have been judging LD for the past 8 or 9 years.

Speed:
As a former policy debater and judge, I can follow speed. However, I do not feel that excessive speed is necessary for, or really has a place in, LD debate. If you choose to use speed, then you must be clear and articulate well. If I cannot understand you, then I will not flow it. If it is not on my flow, it is as if it was never said.

Value, Value Criterion:
You must have both, and must support them throughout the round. You must also convince me that your value and criterion are the better ones in the round and that I should vote for them.

Definitions:
I am not a big fan of the definitions debate. The definitions presented by both sides are generally very similar and have the same meaning. This is not a good way to spend your time. Speak on things that actually matter and could affect the outcome of the debate.

Analysis: I like analysis; don't just read to me. Why does your evidence apply to the debate, and how does it support your case? What makes what you are telling me more important in the round? Your evidence should also be cited and from a reputable source.

Cross-ex:
Cross-ex is for getting clarification on your opponent's case and points, not to berate them and try to prove your superiority. I expect cross-ex to be civil.

Voters and weighing the round:
I like having voters and the round weighed. Tell me what you think is important in the round and and why I should vote on them.

I am an assistant coach. My older son was the reason I started judging. He completed in LD debate all 4 years of High School and he graduated from High School in 2015. I did not debate in High School or College. Starting in 2012, I have judged PF and LD. I prefer LD in terms of the time it affords debaters to develop an argument and that it can includes philosophy. However, my experience is more traditional so if you are trying to run progressive argumentation--know you run the risk of me not understanding what you're talking about. The burden is on you to get me to understand your case--not the other way around.

Do you judge on framework or contentions?
The short answer "it depends".
I flow so it just depends on where I think you are winning.

Use good evidence.
Make sure you are using reputable sources (peer-reviewed and/or follow journalistic ethics) with proper citation. Some examples of sources that I don't find reputable: Infowars, Breitbart, Shareblue.

Have your evidence ready to show your opponent should they ask for it.

Side note: If your opponent "flashes" or emails their case to you during the round, delete it at the end. Don't use this as an underhanded opportunity to help your team prep out against an opponent. Although, I think LD has evolved where everyone may be sharing cases in advance of the rounds. I guess my rule of thumb--ask your opponent what their comfort level is.

Clarity.
Speak loudly and clearly. Direct your speeches to the judge. In Cross, direct your questions to your opponent. I don't flow cross, but I am listening for things I think I will hear in speeches. I like roadmaps (off-the-clock) and "sign-posting" within the speech to help with my flowing. Be clear in your arguments in terms of how you are linking everything together (framework, claims, warrants and impacts). Think of ways to easily summarize an idea. Word economy.

If you use jargon, be prepared to explain it.

Slow down on your tag-lines for your value, value criteria, contentions. Also contention taglines are like headlines--make them pithy and to the point. Then you use your evidence and analysis to explain your contention.

Remember to continue to use your evidence in your rebuttals. Give me the impacts of the world you are creating.

If something is dropped or extends through, you need to say it. Don't assume I will do that for you.

Summarize what you want me to write on the ballot with Voters in your last speech. You can't cover everything in the last 2 minutes so it should be a summary of what you think I should write in my RFD.

Speed. In terms of speed, talking faster than 300 words/minute (wpm) you do at your own risk. I read at about 300wpm. Most audiobooks are read at about 150wpm. Anything being read faster than 300wpm is faster than most auctioneers. I find "spreading" to be a lazy tactic--trying to throw everything you can at your opponent also means you want the judge to sift through your pile of arguments as well. If you speak faster than 300wpm, then you run the risk of me not catching the important parts of your argument. At a minimum, slow down on your taglines for your value, value criteria, contentions, warrants.

Clash. I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each others cases. If you run progressive arguments, link it back to the resolution and your opponent's case. Otherwise, I may or may not see it as topical/relevant.

If there is no clash in the around then you are asking me to intervene--so I may judge then on presentation or entertain skills. Just keep this in mind.

Be respectful. Opponents should be respectful. I understand the adrenaline can get flowing, but being abusive or sarcastic won't help your cause and will lower your speaker points. Even if you are the smartest person in the room and I am dumbest, the judge's determination is what matters. Insulting the judge will also lower your speaker points.

References:

SPJ Code of Ethics

Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

She/her- you can call me Brittany

experienced in all speech events, congressional debate, PF, and, LD

PF- I'm retired PF coach and have been judging PF for years. I have also judged quite a bit of LD.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said. Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them. They are not useful in pf and rarely tell me anything. Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Default framework is harms vs benefits for all PF. Just because you have a framework and your opponents don't doesn't mean you win automatically. If they fully respond to your framework or lay out their own, even in rebuttal, I'm fine with that.

Generally not interested in non-topical arguments.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

LD- I am a previous PF person coach but have been judging LD on and off since 2007. A lot of my notes will be the same as above honestly cause they apply to both. But I will repeat them here and also add anything else.

I flow (except crossfires) but I'm not going to get down every source tag. If you feel a source is important or you want to argue your opponents source please make sure I know what the source said in case (or blocks). Id prefer you to refer to what the evidence said than just card tags.

Speed-don't go too fast. It isn't so much an issue of me not being able to follow you, it's more the fact that this is a public speaking and communication competition and not a race. At no point in the real world will being the person who speaks the fastest get you anywhere. Since I am not going to judge the round based on simply a tally of who had the most arguments, it's not really worth your time squeezing in that extra contention/argument.

Please, please, please impact weigh for me. You don't want your judge to have to decide what's most important, tell them why your impacts are most important.

Roadmaps- don't do them unless youre going in a weird order(and ideally dont go in a weird order, I prefer line by line down the flow). Just signpost in your speech. As long as you're organized, I should be able to follow you. If you're not organized, a roadmap wouldn't help me anyway.

Be nice to each other, don't constantly cut each other off in cx, you will see it effect your speaker points if you do.

Generally not interested in completely non-topical arguments. That doesnt mean I wont entertain them potentially in LD as I know theyre very popular. This also doesnt mean I wont entertain arguments like vote neg because this topic is inherently racist, that is still topical. IF you have a non-Kritik case tho, Id recommend you run that in front of me.

Framework is very important- make sure you address it at the beginning- if your frameworks are the same you can just quickly acknowledge that and move on- sometimes kids spend a long time talking about how both teams have a Value of morality and that isnt needed for me. I also dont need you to readdress the framework in later speeches if theyre the same but if theyre different make sure to address it.

Prep Time - Please use your prep time wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be quick about it.

Good luck!

Congress- On the debate side of the ballot: I highly value clash and new arguments. Rehashing old points is unlikely to get you a high score. The one exception is a really strong crystallization speech that does a good job of summing up what has happened in the debate so far (and these speeches are not easy to do well). On the speech side of the ballot: this is a speech heavy activity, more so than any other debate category. Make sure you follow all the rules of a good speech (vocal control and physical poise are polished, deliberate, crisp and confident. Few errors in pronunciation. Content is clearly presented and organized) I prefer extemporaneous style with only occasional note references for evidence specifics (ideally no notes needed, as in extemp). Make sure you cite your sources (and that your speech includes sources).

I am a former policy debater, who did a little LD in high school (early 90s). I coached policy for three years when I was in college and law school. Between 2000 and 2018, I occasionally judged CX, LD, and PF. I have judged PF and LD at several tournaments in the 2019-20 school year. I intend to judge some Congress in the 2019-20 school year.

See below for PF/LD and Congress.

PF/LD

General: A debate should (with rare exceptions) begin with the first speech and end with the last speech. I don't want to be on any email chains. I don't want to see any evidence after the round. I will keep track of prep time, but I would prefer if you kept track of your speech times.

I want to keep the round moving, so be ready to speak when it is your turn. If you want prep time, use it. Yes, it takes a few seconds to get to the place where you will speak. But this is not the point to take 5 minutes to get your laptop ready, etc.

You don't need to ask if I am ready. I will let you know if I am not. You can ask if your opponents are ready, but you should assume that your partner is ready. If your opponents are ready, you should give the untimed road map described in the Flow section.

Speed: I prefer a normal rate of speed and will flow a slightly faster rate.

Flow: For LD/PF, I usually flow on two, or three, pieces of paper. It will usually be one sheet for each side's case, and sometimes one sheet for voters. Before your constructive speeches, you should provide an untimed 10-second road map so that I can get my flow in order. This is usually simply saying, e.g., my case, my opponent's case, voters. I don't want to hear your specific arguments.

Constructive Speeches: I prefer a quick overview at or near the beginning of the constructive speech and a quick summary at the end of the constructive speech (this can vary given the lengths of certain constructive speeches). There is a reason behind the adage: tell them what you will say, say it, tell them what you said. This is not a mystery novel. When you get to a contention, I like already having a general sense of how it fits into the bigger picture of your case.

There should be clash and weighing. It seems strange to need to say this, but debates too often simply devolve to conclusory statements (e.g., pro argues that jobs will be created, con argues that jobs will be lost). You should explain why your position, on the whole, is superior. I tend to prefer analysis and examples over expert evidence. For example, you should explain why an example is representative of the whole, rather than just identifying the example. I suspect the other side can cite a counter example, and then I, as a judge, have no ability to determine why one example is better than the other.

I generally prefer a wholistic approach rather than a line-by-line. As a result, drops of entire arguments are much more important than drops of a specific point. If an opponent drops an entire argument, you should not simply say that your opponent dropped it. You should still take 15-30 seconds to explain why this drop is important. And don't oversell the drop. If the dropped argument was not the focus of most the round, you won't win on the drop, but it might be the tiebreaker. If an opponent drops a specific point in the line-by-line, it won't hurt you to mention it. If it is a critical point, then you should take some time to explain the importance of the drop. But if the drop is simply item 5 of a 6-item line-by-line, then the drop probably will have little effect on the round.

Cross Examination/Crossfire: I feel that CX/CF is usually poorly used. I don't flow CX/CF, but I will recognize when a debater effectively uses CX/CF. A good CX/CF can take out arguments (sometimes to such an extent that it is clear who will win the round) or reduce your opponent's credibility. If you show that your opponent does not understand their case, then I am less likely to accept their arguments in the later constructive speeches. If I don't know what you accomplished at the end of CX/CF, then it was probably a wasted opportunity.

CX/CF is for asking questions to clarify information you missed (to a lesser extent) and to poke holes in your opponent's case or to lock them into a position (to a greater extent). These periods are not for asking a question for the purpose of giving a 30-second argument about your case (which happens so often in PF). Before you start CX/CF, you should have one or two goals that you want to accomplish by the end of CX/CF. A good CX/CF will usually feature a line of questioning, rather than a single question.

LD: I prefer a traditional value-focused round. Although I have voted for more "policy" issues, such as kritiks, I am disinclined to vote on these issues. For example, if the debaters are of equal quality, I will generally vote for the traditional LD debater over the "policy" debater.

I find that the actual values are generally less important in the reason for decision than which debater better achieves their (and/or their opponent's) value. When the values are identical or similar, the debaters can simply say as much. When the values are different, you will probably want to spend a little time explaining why your value is superior. But, even in these rounds, you will generally want to focus on achieving the value.

PF: Because PF is supposed to be accessible to lay judges, I don't really have any specific preference on the arguments made in the round.

One additional comment about crossfire. I hate when half of CF is wasted with the debaters simply asking if they can ask a question. Unless the rules at a specific tournament dictate otherwise, the person who gave the first speech should ask the first question without asking if they can ask the first question. The debaters should assume that they will alternate questions. If it is a debater's turn to ask a question but does not have one, the debater should indicate that so that the opponent can ask a question. If a debater wants to ask a two-part question, they should mention it before asking the first question. The debater should then ask the first question, get the response, ask the second question, and get the response. As mentioned above, a debater should not use CF to give a short speech.

Disclosure and Oral Critiques: Unless required by the tournament, I will not disclose the result or provide an oral critique.

Congress

Speeches: When scoring a speech on a 1-6 scale, the lowest score I will give is a 3. This is generally a speech that is very short or contributes next to nothing in the session. I will rarely give a score of 6. Most speeches will receive a score of 4 or 4.5.

Because authorship speeches can be written prior to the tournament, I expect a very good authorship speech and will give a score of 5 or more.

As the number of speakers increases on a piece of legislation, I expect that the speeches to become more responsive to earlier speeches. In other words, if you are the last speaker on the bill and you add very little to the session, then the highest score you will receive is a 4.

Barring an amendment, I do not like when speakers give a speech and then vote the other way. I don't pay particular attention to this, but if I see it (and I have on rare occasions), I wonder what was the purpose of your speech. This is an easy way for me to move you down in the session ranks (or off the ranks entirely).

Questions: I generally do not score questions, but the speaker should be able to effectively answer questions. In rare circumstances, I might increase or decrease a speech score by .5 if the speaker is exceptionally good or bad at responding to questions.

Presiding Officer: If you want to be the PO, I expect that you take it seriously, know the rules, and keep the chamber running smoothly.

Session Ranks: I base session ranks on how much the speaker added to the session. Speeches will generally guide session ranks, but questions (both in terms of asking and answering) and other factors could be tiebreakers. I generally give a higher rank to individuals who give more speeches. For example, an individual who gave two speeches of 4 (or 4.5) will generally get a higher rank in the session than an individual who gave one speech of 5. Given that the PO is involved the entire session, I generally will include the PO in the session ranks. If you follow the advice above, I will rank you higher on the session ranks. If you do not follow the advice, I will rank you low on the session ranks, and possibly not include you at all.

Civility, respect and and alignment to league policies are expected.

I am heavily focused on the clarity of your arguments; specifically, the flow of cause-and-effect links to your ultimate Impacts.

Many debaters get lost in the transitions from argument to argument; focus on the clarity of the linkages/transitions which connect your speech together. Provide a Rebuttal which summarizes how your Main Arguments connect to a MAJOR IMPACT which significantly affects society.

Many debaters get lost on the transition between the current argument and the next point. Transition statements between ideas and arguments help the Judge follow your flow. Clarity of the flow of argumentation and the Final Impact are key, here. CLARITY of the flow of your arguments are key.

Tell us how your arguments uphold your Values and Value Criterion in your Final Rebuttal, as well as their essential link to the Final Impact.

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.