• Seven years experience mostly debate (Congressional, LD, PF).
• Comfortable with speed and jargon in debate but prefer that students that speak clearly and not rush through a script.
• Value students who have prepared for the debate and can demonstrate civility in their interactions with other students.

I competed in NPDA/NPTE for three years in college, in addition to high school IEs and Congress. I don't mind conversational or technical debate; both have benefits and limitations.

If I am judging you in IPDA: you should be reasonably topical; negatives have the right to redefine if you don't meet that threshold. Disclosure is fine, but it's not required- it's generally not a voting issue for me. Impacts and framing matter. If it's a policy resolution, I grant the aff fiat.

If I am judging you in LD: Speed is fine. I'll let you know if you need to slow down, so you don't need to try to guess. I'm fine with kritiks, theory, non-topical affs, etc. Just make sure you're winning the flow and framing the round effectively.

Overall: Be kind, try new things, learn from each round. Debate is about education.

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech intensely and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Congressional Debate

Congressional debate is about how you present yourself for the entire session, not just while you are speaking. As such, I am paying attention to everything. You should be active in the chamber, without overpowering the other competitors. One excellent speech and a handful of great questions will not always outweigh multiple good speeches and several questions.

Congressional Debate is just as much about the debating as it is the presentation. According to that, I weigh both what you say and how you say it equally. I weigh all speeches the same—a constructive speech that effectively sets up the debate and a crystallization speech that details the main issues of the debate are equally as effective and powerful.

My judging style doesn’t change when I am a parliamentarian—I look for the same aspects, just with the added benefit of observing for more than one session. As such, I prefer to see consistent activity across all sessions, not just one. I rely on the presiding officer to run the chamber quickly, correctly, and effectively. In general, I will only intervene if a major error occurs.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!

Hi!

Like most judges, I have strong opinions on this event and how it ought to happen. Here goes. Please let me know before the round if you have any questions.

Background

I competed in Congress for a little over two years for Charlotte Latin School. My senior year, I qualified to the TOC, reached quarters in House at Nationals, and won second place at North Carolina’s state championships. I am now a first year at Trinity College Dublin, where I compete in British Parliamentary and have broken at all four tournaments I have competed in thus far.

Organization

I don’t care how you organize your speech, provided you organize it somehow and do so well. If you want to give me only one contention, refute for three minutes, or crystallize, go right ahead. That said, please do not try and squeeze more than two contentions into a speech. You do not have time to develop three, or god forbid, four arguments in three minutes.

Constructives

I will not read the bill. You should not assume that I know anything about the issue at hand. Thus, it is your job to explain the problem and walk me through how the bill solves for it/makes things worse. You should use this as an opportunity to characterize the world in a way that benefits your side and makes your arguments more plausible.

Clash/Refutation

I expect any speech past the first negative to meaningfully interact with at least one other speaker in the round. Note the ‘meaningfully’ bit. Yelling out other speakers’ last names rather than actually engaging with any of their material does not constitute refutation. Saying ‘they don’t have a quantification so that point falls’ also does not constitute refutation. Tell me what someone said, why it’s wrong, and why even if it’s right, it doesn’t matter as much as you/your side’s material. Congress is not and should not be a speech event.

Impacts

When judging, I will consciously attempt to detach myself from my personal opinions and biases. It is your job to make me care and prove why something is a harm/benefit. Thus, your impact should move beyond ‘if we implement x policy, y will happen’ - explicitly tell me that the effect of a policy is good/bad and how so.

Evidence

Full disclosure: I do not care how much evidence you have, I care how strong and well-analyzed it is. Reading off five cards cut from opinion pieces and calling it a contention will not impress me. Analyzing one statistic from an academic journal really, really well will. Tell me where your evidence is coming from, why it makes sense, and why it matters.

Delivery/Rhetoric

Be clear, slow, and audible and you’ll be grand. I won’t hold a vocal stumble or two against you so please do not freak out post-round. I will begrudgingly rank you up for good/cheesy rhetoric because much as I dislike it, that is how Congress functions. However, if you overuse rhetoric to the point where you lack a coherent and well-analyzed argument, I will drop you. I value argumentation over delivery and style, but my ability to judge your argument is predicated on delivery so do it well.

Questioning

I like an aggressive line of questioning just as much as, if not more than the next judge, but please refrain from talking over/at the same time as the other speaker. I will not be able to hear either of you and that is not good. That said, if the other speaker’s answer lacks substance or their question is an obvious attempt to give a thirty second speech, I will appreciate it if you do cut them off. Apart from that, don’t preface. I know it technically isn’t banned by the NSDA but it’s a lazy way to generate questions and I reserve the right to penalize you for it.

Presiding

Unless you royally screw up, you’ll get my top eight.

Miscellaneous

- No rehash. I will drop you.

- Jokes are grand. Please make jokes. Use your better judgement and don't say anything tasteless, but I appreciate a good sense of humour in an event where people have a tendency to take themselves a little too seriously.

- I know how messy circuit politics can get. If you were actively trying to speak but didn’t get called on, I won’t penalize you on those grounds. I will judge you on the speeches you gave.

- My immune system is trash so please don't shake my hand. If you want to give me a horrendously awkward thumbs up/finger guns, however, I will gladly reciprocate.

Equity!!!

If you’re an aggressive speaker or aggressive in questioning, I won’t rank you down based on that alone. However, there is a difference between angry or aggressive delivery and being cruel. If you are in any way unsure of what that difference is, err on the side of caution and be civil. There is no faster way to the bottom of my ballot than making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc comments about another individual.

Once again, let me know if you have any questions. If you want feedback after the round, please come up to me and ask - I can talk a lot faster than I can type and I'll be able to give you more substantial/helpful feedback.