Please offer strong narrative for your case and clear explanation of concepts/arguments. Please do not speak too quickly, as I am a lay judge and would like to take in the details of your case.

I want to see clear well thought arguments. In terms of clarity I am not a fan of you speeding through the case, I have to be able to understand you. I am a traditional judge. When in round be polite to your opponents.

Congress:

I rank POs. If I didn't rank you as a PO, it wasn't because you weren't considered. I presided often when I competed. This means that I know parli procedure/RRO well, but it also means that I understand the struggle.

Break down what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and sponsor/author. I haven't always had time to read it. Even if I have, it's not nice to assume.

I care most about the content of a speech. You have to clash/extend if you are the fifth+ speaker. Additionally, make sure that your extensions aren't just rehash. This means you have to introduce new information and strengthen the argument. Too many Congress competitors have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

You are also judged based on your kindness/fairness in recesses and before the round begins. Equity is very important to me. I don't care how many speeches you give, unless you a) don't participate at all or b) are rude to someone else in order to give additional speeches.

I don't like cheesy AGDs. Although I don't think Congress should be 100% roleplay, at least try to give serious introductions. This applies x10 if the bill is about something serious. This means no song lyrics/movie references etc. I did Congress, so I know all of the canned intros as well as you do. Don't use them.

Allow me to get on my soapboax: I am really bothered by the recent trend of calling people 'Ms.' or 'Mr.' instead of representative. Look, I understand that it's fewer syllables. I get that it makes it easier to transition from house to senate and vice versa. Too often, people will call male presenting speakers 'Representative' and female speakers 'Ms.' If you do this, it will negatively affect your ranking. It genders speakers in a way they may dislike (Zoom update: online, people can share their pronouns more easily. Some people use this as reasoning to use titles, but just be careful). TL;DR, avoid using gendered titles. If you use them, at least use them consistently instead of using them as a way to devalue female-presenting speakers.

I really like Congress, and I hope everyone has fun with it!

IEs:

I only did extemp and oratory if that contributes to your strikes.

I don't really have a paradigm for prepped events because y'all have been working on them since last July. Just make them yours.

Insofar as extemp, my most important request is that you answer the question. Don't do anything fancy, just lay it out for me. Ideally, I will learn something from your speech. Additionally, I like to know that you understand what you're talking about. You have the internet to search nowadays, use it!

Also, I hate that this has to be said, but...don't make up evidence. It's usually obvious, and even when it isn't, it's unethetical.I care most about content of a speech. Too many debaters have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

PF/WSD:

Mom judge. Flay. Be nice.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal, but it's not required. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. This means I should hear the warranting behind the complete link chain (just repeating the taglines or solely extending the impact is not sufficient.)

Please collapse in the back half of the round. If you go for too much, you won't be able to extend the complete link and impact story for any singular piece of offense. Weighing should be present in summary and final focus. If there is no good weighing I will default to the team with the most coherently fleshed out link chain.

Unless the piece of evidence is literally made up, I am never going to vote off an evidence call. It will just make me grumpy.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. So, you're probably better off not running these arguments in front of me unless you do a really god job making it sound lay.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.