Judge Name: Andy Burmeister

School: Waukesha South

Experience

Burmeister, while not a member of debate while a student, has developed an appreciation for debate during his time as being a judge. As an outsider, he likes students to carefully explain their arguments and take their time while presenting them.

Philosophy

Burmeister prefers substance over speed. It is important that arguments be clear and take the time to convey their importance to the topic.

Topicality

Burmeister will rely on the students to present examples of how plans will work and how they will not. It is up to the students to adequately argue definitions and standards.

Counterplans

Show the benefits to the counterplan and be clear when explaining how the benefit will be achieved.

Kritiks

Think clearly about how the argument will link thoroughly and provide an alternative. If the kritik is at all confusing it will not be voted on.

Disadvantages

Take the time to clearly explain any impacts and links to avoid any confusion.

Structure of the Round and Speaking

A well-organized argument with closed cross examinations are preferred.

Rebuttals

A rebuttal with clear ideas in timeframe, magnitude, and probability are always taken with notice. Summarize your opponent’s argument and build off it with your own counterpoints.

Timing and Technology

The timer beeps and we all move on. Students will be notified when their time is starting but it is up to them to keep track of how they use it.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Let me know when you do it.

Please don't try to judge-adjust too much... this should serve more as a guideline to introduce yourself to me.

What am I good for?:

Good For:

--K Affs

--K on the negs

--DA-case debates

--Politics/elections debates

--T (If you feel you can argue this competently, do it, but most people don't)

--Anything, honestly... I am not a fan of conditionality for negs, though, unless it's just for one item.

--I will vote on disclosure theory

More In-Depth Background (Before Round Version After):

SQUO: I'm not going to pretend like I don't know anything about the status quo, so don't act or pretend like something is happening that isn't or vice versa. (e.g., If an opponent has a slightly dated card about a poll and you cross-ex and say, "Well, aren't these cards outdated?" and try to imply like there's been any radical difference between then and now in terms of poll numbers, I'm not going to care for that unless you have something crazy or radical to back it up that would be substantial to the debate. Don't cross-ex dumb questions.)

TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

SPEED: Go as fast as you want but Read LOUD and CLEAR. If you are mumbling through your evidence, I will not hear you...

I have an auditory disability that makes it hard to hear soft sounds. Clear and loud is the best way for me to comprehend evidence, but again, you don't have to be slow.

Things of note before your round starts:

If you are trying to be mean simply for the purpose of being mean because you want to overwhelm the other team and make them look bad, I will see right through it.

Flashing:

Add me to the email chain

Road-Mapping is cool

Voting:

I vote off the flow (tabs judge) so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments, so keep that in mind. If you try to confuse the other team instead of debating the specifics of your policy, I will vote down your team more than likely.

SPEAKER POINTS FOR ALL:

Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could get speaker points docked...

1.) Being an a-hole in your speeches towards someone or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner, I will have more leniency when it comes to those who may be discriminated against for being “too aggressive”, so don’t worry (I’m talking more about people who usually identify as women who have this issue)
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("Judge, you have to vote for this judge" over and over). I understand it's a habit for some, but avoid it if possible.
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "How's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me... for the love of God, do not do this. I debated for years, and you don't need to pretend you like me or the other team. Be mean to me if you want, I do not care, just don’t pretend like I’m any different than you in the round.
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) Not Road Mapping In-Round (Just say onto ___) Trying to trick the other team by not listing your advantages by name only hurts my flow for you. Just do it.
7.) DO NOT walk around the room during your speech or someone else's speech unless it's to grab evidence. I will heavily dock you.
8.) I will not dock you for speaking for your partner in the middle of their speech if you need to include something... I will listen to you. Your partner doesn't need to repeat it. Just know that I will take that into consideration if you're doing massive chunks of a speech and the negs run an education T argument.

IN-ROUND STUFF

K Affs

I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I only debated policy in high school. Explaining your advocacy is a must, and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise, it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.

Okay with identity args, high-theory, soft-left, just explain how the advocacy functions and solves

Make sure you are not name-dropping and assuming everyone knows who or what you are talking about.

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Ks

Links: I'm not as persuaded by links of omission or links to the status quo unless you can explain how the aff furthers the harms you've isolated. Specific links are the best, but I'm persuaded by both links to the plan text and links to the advantages/impacts/representations of the aff.

Impacts: I'll evaluate the pre-fiat and post-fiat impacts of the k. Framing is important to tell me what kinds of impacts I should evaluate and whether theory should come first.

Alts/litbase: I probably don't know your theories or your authors, so be sure to explain how the alt functions and try to minimize jargon and name-dropping at every level of the flow. I'll vote on all kinds of alts as long as you explain how they function and win solvency of something (not necessarily the case, depending on the round and how impacts are weighed.)

Perm: I won't vote on a perm that wasn't clearly articulated in the 2AC. You need to explain how it functions so that I can evaluate it weighed against the alt as a stand-alone.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at tannercronce@gmail.com. This is also how you add me to the email chain. Tell me when you do it.

Cross-Ex

I don’t flow cross-ex unless it’s clarifying for me, which means that you need to point out anything you find out during cross-ex during your speech.

No statements during cross-x questioning. Period. I will not flow statements and will disregard a response to the statement unless I feel it clarifies those who are being cx'd, not the ones making the statement. I also will not flow anything that has nothing to do with their evidence or anything I feel does not connect to the debate itself.

Inform me clearly when you are done with your time, aka when your 1AC is over, when cross-x is over, when your prep is done, etc.

If you feel that the author has specific biases, point them out and explain. I want to know that you know authors and how to identify credible sources. Okay with Open Cross ex as long as you don't dominate your partner's cross-ex

Disadvantages

I'll enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides is a must to win in these debates. I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on the specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

Topicality

Just make sure if you run a K Aff, tell me what your connection to FMS or DCS is.

Topicality is a great position and one of the most important for me and unfortunately, hardly anyone goes for it. It has to be run well, though… I get a lot of people who will go for T but do not actually have a fleshed-out reason for me to vote for T. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of God, don't read reverse voters on T.

Framework

Framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

Counterplans

Competition is important, and if a CP isn't competitive, a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP, in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me.

I'm not likely to vote on a CP unless it is actually argued well. I won’t if it’s abusive. I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR. I will vote for it if it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off blocks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Updated 11.02.20**

gmail: william.m.donovan@gmail.com

sensitive material: max.donovan@pm.me (this email is encrypted by proton mail)

please direct complaints to the former as I check it more often.

He/Him/His

TLDR: My opinion is one of many, and this round is just one of many. Treat them as such. Be kind, be open, and be willing to lose for what you believe in– you will have transcended this activity.

Head Coach Madison East High School. Competed in LD, PF, Extemp, and CX on the Colorado/National circuits for 4 yrs in high school. Also Congress.

Truth, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty over tech. It has never been appropriate to manipulate representations of people's lives as part of a game, but it is a practice that has become normalized in an activity that prioritizes winning over truth. If we are to overcome the deadly cynicism of our abundant society we are all responsible for taking radical steps toward treating our lives and those of others as very real. This ideology is central to who I am and it effects the way I interact with debate. Primarily in that I think each round is a real discussion and that I, as a human being and not a blank slate, am inherently a part of it. If you would like to advocate, inform, protest, perform, write, build a coalition, make friends, work on art, learn about government, develop policies, have a conversation, test your ideas against other debaters, etc., I would love to work with you and try to facilitate those projects. To address the elephant in the room– I have nothing against traditional policy discussions but I will not privilege them. I will be thinking about the round from a basis of reality– two debate teams and a judge in a room trying to figure out what to do in the world– unless you give me reason to abandon reality and embark on an illusion with you (there is always room for imagination, theory, and fabulation). If you are here to try and pick up ballots, you probably want to pref me very low, but I think discussions with those you disagree with are often the most fruitful, so maybe email me anyway.

As you might be able to tell, I have little reverence for the structures or constructs of the activity and believe many of them are unnecessary or actively harmful. Time yourselves (or don't), sit or stand, use your allotted time in CX/prep how you want to, but please be respectful of the other people in the discussion. I will only intervene if you are being abusive toward the other students, so if both teams agree to some altered format, please have at it. I think rigid adherence by judges and coaches to traditional structures shuts out student voices, so it is one of my projects not to give special treatment to familiar arguments or debate formats just because they have been accepted into the norm. Debate is a part of our reality though and I am not going to play dumb about shorthand or the history of arguments– there are often reasons certain arguments and formats are popular, but not all of those reasons are good. What is the role of the ballot? It buys us some time from tab to have a meaningful conversation. I will always try to have a good reason for voting, but that reason will not always follow standard course.

My dream rounds are relaxed, concise, and collaborative. This really just means please do your best to approach truth with the other team. Collaboration doesn't require agreement (and often requires criticism), but it does preclude hostility. I do not take kindly to deceit, grandstanding, interruption, or other forms of hostility as strategies. Power comes in solidarity so I am more impressed when abuse is resolved than when it is exploded. Alleging a theoretical violation shuts down productive conversation, but it is crucially important when other teams are acting in bad faith. If you're going to allege a theoretical violation (I include topicality in this category) please gut check the abuse first. When you argue theoretical violations as a strategy you cheapen those arguments for when actual abuse has occurred and shut down meaningful conversation. If you've decided an argument is actually abusive (as in– is a significant obstacle to your ability to participate in the discussion), please provide a comprehensive model of the debate round (e.g. role of ballot/role of judge, competing interpretations v. reasonability, drop the debater v. drop the argument) or I will default to my own standard of reasonability, and I do not think topicality or fairness are essential to a good debate round.

Please be open to admitting fault, apologizing, and to receiving apology when an abuse has been leveled against you. If the transgressor apologizes and changes their behavior I will be very reticent to vote on the abuse. Alternatively, if the abuse is minimized by the transgressor I believe that anger is a valid and righteous form of advocacy on behalf of the transgressed and will not hold it against you.

The cardinal sin as far as I am concerned is an inauthentic advocacy, especially in critiquing another team. Not only are you (k)riticizing the other team's behavior, you are doing so as an exploitative performance of outrage for personal gain. The contents of a K are often a dire call for change from a person who is being suffocated by existing power structures. When you exploit their words as a debate strategy you participate in an act of violent cynicism that takes power from their advocacy and contributes to their suffocation. Please, join a cause if it speaks to you, lift a voice if others need to hear it. I will always assume authentic intent (and I look very negatively on cynical arguments that seek to discredit the authenticity of another team's advocacy– @psychoanalysis). This is just a plea that you critically evaluate your own motivations and ask yourself whether you are contributing to an author's fight or if you are coopting their movement for a ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I have been made aware that my time as an LD debater makes me more amenable to post-modernist critique and psychoanalysis than most policy judges. I do not identify as a utilitarian, a humanist, or a neoliberal and I have spent enough time critiquing those ideas that I do not subconsciously default to them as a framework for evaluating impacts. If anything I lean toward an anarchic deontological model that prioritizes biological autonomy for individuals; political, social, cultural, and moral autonomy for communities; and temporary representative democracies for projects larger than that. I do not believe life has inherent value, but I do believe it has immense potential. Our souls, minds, and lives are not always ours to make or ours to lose, but when given the choice we should pursue life even at the cost of death.

I will talk to you for hours about your cases, my decisions, etc. so please reach out.

Question: Am I a bad judge?
Answer: Maybe? Probably. I'm either dumb or just slow.

Disclaimer: I have not judged since 2021. Go easy on me

Experience: I debated policy three years for Neenah High School (WI) and have been judging/coaching since 2016. I was an ok (subpar) debater with some nationals experience, but I was double 1s so evaluate that however you want. Most of my judging these days is LD but don't expect me to be an expert on the topic. I have judged maybe once this season.

Paradigm: Tabs. I'm good with speed, if I can't understand you I guess I'll say something. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. I am pretty good at following K proper flows. I can have a hard time with heavy theory debates. That being said, feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with.

In Round stuff: I really really really would prefer you to time your own speeches/prep/cross. I am very disorganized and absent-minded so I will probably forget to write down the prep usage or start speech times late if at all. Its also just good practice to be mindful of time in a round.

If its allowed at the tournament put me on the email chain.

Special Notes: You are responsible for the language that you use in the debate round; racist, sexist, queerphobic, ableist, or any other discriminatory speech will not be tolerated.

-Anything Else-

Feel free to ask me before a round. Chances are you know more than I do, I generally think I know what I'm talking about but I probably don't.

My email is isaacdorn@gmail.com

Email me if you have any questions about your ballot or my paradigm, I'm happy to reply!

-More Detail-

-Affirmatives-

Policy affs with a plantext: Go for it.

Plantext affs with K impacts: Go for it

Non Traditional Affs (advocacy, narratives, performance, kritikal, etc.): Go for it, but make sure to clearly extend case. Also I need a clear ROB so that I know what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

-Negatives-

DAs: Go for it.

CPs (Consult, Process, Agent, etc.): Go for it, make sure there is a clear net benefit. I tend to grant affs a bit more leeway when it comes to solvency as long as there isn't a competitive fiat debate. I also appreciate good explanations of the perm on both sides (i.e. whether there is functional severance, redundancy, works/doesn't work etc.). Some caveats; I have a history of defaulting affirmative on counterplans that I am unclear on or if the permutation debate seemed muddled to me (I am, however, beginning to shift my mindset on this towards tech>truth)

Ks (any kind): Go for it. Love em'. Like I said, I can keep up with K proper flows. Make sure your alt and link are clearly explained. While I like kritiks, I prefer for them to be educational rather than strategically ambiguous. Although I'm comfortable with my literature base, I will not do the conceptual work for you. You must adequately explain the content of your kritik.

T - Let me preface this by saying I have never voted on T. That being said, there are a few things you need to do to win a T debate in front of me. 1) Clear and present standards AND voters 2) In round abuse (which could be strategically planned) or a compelling reason for me to vote on potential abuse 3) Commitment in the 2NR, the argument is theoretically that you can't engage with a non-topical aff, if you spend half the 2NR with offense on the aff that makes your argument less compelling. IMO Topicality is a tool to keep affirmatives in check, I am much more Truth>Tech on the T flow.

-Theory-

Most of my squirreling on panels is usually because my understanding of theory. I didn't really get it as a debater, so most of my knowledge comes from my experience as a judge/coach/just thinking about it. I think my biggest problem with theory is that it is often presented as a series of quick one-liners that don't have a ton of substance. Seeing that I've never been great at flowing my preference is depth over breadth on theory.

(Update) I will not retract my previous statement, however I have developed my thought process some more. When you are engaged in a theory debate in front of me, make sure you have two things. 1) A sufficient claim that you meet your interpretation of debate better than your opponent. 2) Comparative offense calculus so that I as a judge understand why I should care about your interpretation of debate.

I will for sure vote for theory arguments in a debate, if I can understand them.

IN LD:

The WDCA requires that I add the following to my paradigm

Apply all of the above and...

Framework: Framework is an important aspect of your case and should not be neglected. Don't ignore offense on your FW.

V/VC: I don't need to see a Value/Value criterion in your case in order for me to vote for you. But you are responsible for making a cohesive argument as to why it is important for you to ignore this structure.

Plantexts: Go for it. I come from policy so honestly I would prefer a plantext.

CP: I think a CP is a fundamental part of your offensive toolkit on the negative and you should take advantage of this as much as you can.

Kritik: Kritiks are great. Don't expect me to do the legwork for you though, see above for specifics. Extend your evidence.

What I vote for in LD: Generally I will be voting for the team which understands their case more. Refer to my paradigm for what I like to see in a round.

spash '18

wake forest '21

add me to the email chain: immanueleggers@gmail.com

*i haven't judged on the water topic yet. i don't know the common lingo/acronyms so you will have to be clear early. i catch on quick, but clarity is key.

tl;dr: do what you want. explain your args well, debate case. i just want to watch you debate your best and happiest with the arguments you enjoy/find most strategic, and to learn/educate in the rounds i'm in.

tech>truth (but truth can and often does overwhelm tech)

clarity>speed

good evidence>more evidence

case: please -- i think that affs gets away with murder and am increasingly sympathetic to presumption-esque ballots.

t: never a reverse-voter, competing interps > reasonability. i like a good t debate but really don't like evaluating bad ones. framework is a thing and i'll definitely vote on it, but lean aff when it is the direction of the topic. this doesn't mean i won't vote on t-usfg at all, but that i need nuance on explaining what ground you loss/explicit extra t arguments to be persuaded. it's helpful to run multiple off to prove abuse in context of the round.

cp: yes! some of my favorite parts of debate are contextual cps. i prefer you have a solvency advocate and usually presume the cp doesn't need to solve 100% of case as long as there is a risk of a net benefit. judge kick should be explicit in the 2nr if you want me to do so.

da: they're great. so is turns case analysis ;))

k: they're great. so is turns case analysis ;)). also tell me what to do if you kick/feel behind on the alt debate, i'm pretty prone to "aff on presumption"-esque ballots based on impact calc. links can definitely be linear disads to the aff, just tell me how!!

planless affs: yep -- i prefer some tie to the topic (open to interpretation) and pretty clear judge instruction from the start. presume i know less than many judges on the fine-points of your methodology but feel comfortable knowing that good explanation and debating is adequate for me to vote aff.

theory: i evaluate it like t; condo is probably good but might not be if you tell me it isn't, if they drop theory and you don't extend it ??? what are you doing

misc. thoughts:

i love when you rehighlight their ev and i LOVE spins. if you don't get pinned down, spin all you want. i think that a beautiful part of debate is using evidence as pieces to construct a larger message, not to just restate what someone else said. that said, i really love great evidence, but think that analytics/spins get too devalued. card docs should really only have crucial or contested pieces of ev. cross-apply things -- the whole debate matters and i really love to see debaters piece those different worlds together.

i really dislike over-adapting for debates. this can be in ego or argumentation, i.e. kissing ass/being super condescending to your opponent or running a certain argument because you know it to be something i have proximity to. i don't like my presence as a judge being an influencing factor of the debate. i really like rounds to just be chill if they can be, but understand if there is urgency for it to not be (i.e. something bad happened in round, the discussion is serious, etc.) saying phrases like "this is my cx" or "this card/arg is fire" are just... :(

i do think clipping is a reason to dq but don't feel comfortable independently pulling the trigger unless it is super obvious -- i usually try to follow the doc, but try to record + call for action after the speech. i'm sympathetic to bartering, i.e. "my b, we can scratch the card that i messed up on" but if it's excessive/the other team insists on an l, i gotta do it because tab rules o/w.

i really don't like stealing prep. i know when you are stealing it because i have eyes??? so please don't

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit outround/bid round experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you'e just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much. Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot. In fact, it will make me really not like you.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I have tried to have a better poker face, but I simply cannot do it. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate!

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

I am considered a true tabula rasa (blank slate) judge. I have coached debate for 6 years in two different districts, and debated throughout my high school and college career. I allow any argument to be made, and will vote on any argument that convinces me on why that team should win.

I don’t have any preferences to speed or types of arguments, but if you make an argument, please understand the argument you are making. For this reason, I dislike Topicality since many debaters use it as a time-suck with no real violation or strategy. I allow, and sometimes enjoy, debate theory, and encourage young debaters to educate themselves on such.

Ultimately, I tend to suppress any preconceived ideas and biases I have during a round, so feel free to run anything. Whichever arguments stand at the end of the round wins!

Carpe Diem!

About me

I am a student at Concordia University of Wisconsin and I've debated for 4 years.

Yes, put me on the email chain hayfaiz02@gmail.com

General stuff

Speed is okay, I'd prefer you don't spread, but I understand you may have a lot to get through so just be clear and signpost.

I've been exposed to a few different types of debate, so run what you're comfortable with and explain to me why it should win so it's a fun round for all parties.

I will not do any work for you. If you chose not to call someone out on their evidence being wrong or a flaw in their argument, then I assume that they're right.

I'm not going to vote for any type of racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments. I'll immediately drop the team, but I'm not expecting this to happen.

More specific stuff

T

I love T, but only when used the right way. Make sure you have all four parts or I'm not voting for it. Extend the voters and prove abuse.

On the neg:

Don't run it as a cry-baby thing. If you use it as a time skew, that's cool, but if you really believe that the aff is being abusive, then prove it. What ground do you lose? What's a topical version of the aff?

On the aff:

I need a counter interp. Tell me what the neg could've done and prove that there's no abuse.

Theory

I feel the same way about theory as I do about T. It's fun when argued correctly. I'd love to have a roll of the ballot on theory. Write my flow for me. Why should you win a theory debate? If you let me know and are convincing enough, you're probably going to win. I'll reject the argument not the team, that just makes things more fun.

CPs

On the neg:

Have a clear counter plan text with a strong solvency and a net benefit. I don't really care that much for CPs, but if that's what you're into, then just tell me why the CP is competitive and solves better.

On the aff:

Perms are so important. If you can prove to me that the CP is not mutually exclusive to the aff, then you're getting that flow. Saying "Perm do both", then moving on isn't sufficient enough for me to vote for you.

Disads

On the neg:

These types of debate need hella impact calc. I need a full shell in order to vote for a DA; uniqueness, link, impact. Why should I be more worried about a risk of the DA than the aff? Why is the aff going to trigger the DA?

On the aff:

If you can tell me that you solve for the DA and explain how then it's yours. Or, you could tell me why the impacts don't outweigh what you solve for and I'll also vote on that. Again, I really think DAs are high key boring, but a good impact calc debate will spice some things up.

Ks

I love Ks, but I wasn't entirely taught how to run most of them (excluding cap/neolib) so I'm not very well versed in the literature. Also, don't run Ks if you don't know how to, I may not entirely understand the words you'll be saying, but I can tell when you don't either. So if your varsity gave you a K and you don't know how you feel about it, then unless you don't care about speaks, just let it go. However, try new things, this is all really up to you.

On the neg:

There needs to be a good link. Alts are important, but hey, do what you think will win my ballot. A framework on the K would be really nice along with a ROB. A strong impact has to be there.

On the aff:

Perms work the same with the Ks. Tell me why you can do both, EVEN IF THE ALT IS TO REJECT THE AFF YOU CAN STILL PERM!!! If they don't link then say that. Impact calc is important here as well obviously.

K debates are my favorite, let's have fun with these.

Case

Obviously, extend case throughout the round. Call out dropped arguments or else they're still going to be on my flow. Please don't shadow extend, that's really annoying. As a neg, I usually only go for solvency, but if you can find cards on other aff advantages, then, by all means, go for it.

On the neg:

Link turns are key. Please stay organized with case. I'm not going to flow if I get lost, so don't lose me.

On the aff:

Be responsive, and explain how the solvency functions. Good debaters can use their case to answer most off case arguments.

Stay positive, I know it's cliche, but no one here is a loser. We all walk out of the round with new knowledge and friendships and all that fun stuff, so try to maintain a positive attitude.

But yeah, that's all of it. If there are any other questions, let me know, you have my email.

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.

NCFL NATIONALS:
I primarily coach and judge LD, so my paradigm was written for LD. I've added a specific policy paradigm, and while some of my notes on LD may be applicable for your debates this weekend, most likely will not. I am a college policy debater and have judged nearly a hundred rounds of high school policy, so despite primarily judging LD I am more than comfortable in any policy debate you put me in the back of. I have some broad preferences and some argument specific ones, which I will list below, but the TL;DR is that I am largely agnostic on which arguments you introduce and what style you present them in. This will be my first tournament judging and coaching on the redistribution topic, so I may not follow your examples in topicality debates or know what the acronyms you present mean, so explain stuff.

POLICY PARADIGM:

Top Level:
Evidence quality matters a lot to me, I will often read evidence in close debates, and I am more willing than most to prefer smart analytics over bad evidence. Words not highlighted are not a part of the card.

I rarely look at the doc while flowing, and that means I clear often when debaters are difficult to flow.

Racism/sexism/etc. are unacceptable and will result in a loss.

Policy v Policy:
One A+ card on a question > three C+ cards. Evidence comparison is important and wins or loses debates.

I don't by default think that process doesn't rejoin the aff, and am unsympathetic to aff teams who rely on common sense "process bad" to beat these counterplans. I am sympathetic to aff teams who demonstrate that the counterplan isn't competitive or is theoretically illegitimate for a specific, warranted reason.

A similar thing is true of politics. Genericness does not entail anything about the quality of the argument and I dislike when debaters complain about arguments like politics, process, spark, etc on the grounds of non-specificity.

You have the right to clarify the plan in the 1ac when you introduce the plan text and solvency advocate(s). Very unsympathetic to 2a's who reclarify/specify when not present in the 1ac.

I enjoy solvency debating and dislike that a lot of case debating has become mostly impact defense.

Unlikely to find anything other than condo a reason to reject the team, and start being better for the aff at 5+ condo.

Policy v K

Affirmative teams should be less afraid of the critique and be more willing to substantially disagree with the negative's arguments. They should also use the aff more and rely less on generic perm and theory of power cards. Finally, affirmative teams would be better served by actually debating the links and alternative rather than reading AT: ontology card 7.

Negative teams should demonstrate why the aff as a policy or ethical project is bad, and justify a framework interpretation that explains how I should evaluate offense differently than cost-benefit analysis vs the squo. Do not care much about link evidence being specific to the aff, care a lot about this being true of linkexplanation. Turns case, alt solves, and clever applications of your theory of power can help you deal with aff impact calc claims like extinction outweighs. I do not believe the neg needs to extend an alternative, and I am concerned with kritiks that do not introduce a framework argument being too vulnerable to the perm double bind.

Framework

Affirmative teams should determine whether they would like to make the debate about a counterinterpretation early on, and if not, explain how I should evaluate these kinds of debates if not models v models. They should also make smart defensive arguments that help push back against impact calc-heavy blocks and 2nrs. Their DAs to framework should be resolved by the aff counterinterp or alternative framing mechanism, and should take advantage of language negative teams use to demonstrate links to these DAs. I am neutral on impact turn vs counterinterp.

Negative teams should extend internal links in the block and 2nr rather than hope I fill in the blanks. They should explain why their offense implicates the aff offense, turns it, or demonstrates why it is inevitable. They should justify why competing interps/models v models is the metric by which I should evaluate framework debates, and explain internal links in context of the violation and the counterinterpretation (e.g. "you violate usfg - here's why this links to our limits DA"). If going for arguments about fairness, they should justify why fairness is prior, not just why it matters. I am neutral on clash vs fairness, and generally find the skills explanation of framework unpersuasive compared to intrinsic value of clash / fairness arguments.

KvK

These debates often get messy and I strongly feel both teams should introduce arguments that determine how I evaluate offense, competition, and solvency. Without those arguments, these debates are hard to resolve and often favor the affirmative. No plan no perm is unpersuasive to me, but arguments that set the standard for competition as something different than policy v policy debates are very important for the neg's ability to win. The more these arguments resemble theory arguments with a model of debate and reasons to prefer it, they better. I strongly feel that K v K debates allow for small theoretical disagreements to get hashed out, and so I am very pro small but consequential links.

That's all! If you primarily do more traditional or local policy debate, I'd love to judge it - this is what I did in high school and I enjoy the style of local policy a lot. If you are a TOC-style policy debater and you debate a more local team, I strongly, strongly prefer that you attempt to debate in a way that's inclusive of debaters who don't debate the way you do - this means limiting yourself to a few less off case positions than normal, explaining the K a little bit clearer, and avoiding arguments that reward you for their unfamiliarity - e.g. dense process debates. If you decide to read 8 off and go for curbing against a team clearly unfamiliar with that style of debate, your speaker point will suffer.

LD PARADIGM:

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, topicality, and traditional debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.

I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.

I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker

I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

Todd Le— Policy

updated 1/12/22 (for WSDT)

School Affiliation: Homestead High School (lol rip) (2012-2020); LaCrosse Central (2022)

Position: stressed med student

If you have questions about an RFD feel free to e-mail at: todd241 (at) gmail (dot) com - put me on the chain btw

I know prefs suck so I'ma try to make this as painless as possible. Am I qualified to judge your debate? Probably not - I've forgotten everything about debate

Do my argument ideas align with yours? I don't think that really matters but my time away from the activity has me leaning towards familiarity which is heavily policy leaning compared to K leaning. That said, if you are a K team that doesn't mean my ballot is automatically signed, but it does mean you will have to explain concepts to me like I'm 5. I'll vote on whatever - I just need to know what I'm voting for and the ROB to be evident. Overviews? - pls. Impact Calc? FFS please do.

If you have questions about specific arguments ask me before round - no guarantee my answers will be helpful though

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section for LD:

I am new to LD and a lot of my debate opinions are derived from policy debate - most of the items below should still apply. Good with speed, Theory, Ks, plan, etc. Feel free to ask specific questions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview Tech > truth

Counterplans I have no idea what CPs look like on this topic but general things: PICs are fine, theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team, judge kick is fine, isolated net bens in 2NR is v good, severance perms are rarely reason to reject the team.

Disadvantages/Advantages Line by line is key, overview when necessary, impact calc is one of the only objective ways for me to weigh a round so if all is lost gimme some impact calc to work with pls and thank you. Affirmatives kicking the aff and going for turns on disads is one of the most chad things to do and will be looked upon favorably.

Topicality & Theory I've never seen a good theory 2NR/2AR that I like, or one that I thought was well done. I'm fine with most theory arguments but make sure you tell me how to use it i.e justification to reject the team or reject the arg. I'm fine with theory being run in the 1AR/block if it's justified. My threshold voting for T gets lower as seasons go on and people want to try and be more cheaty and dumb.

Kritiks The only thing worst than bad debate is bad K debate. The K is a unique tool that can be used effectively, but 2NCs of 5 min overviews and 3 mins of line by line referring to the overview is boring to listen to. Clean line by line on the K is good. Isolate the -ology debate (epis/onto/etc.) for me since it's been a while since I've seen these args.

Who is this cat?- I graduated from the University of Illinois in May after doing Parli for three years ('19-'22). I was the assistant coach at Ronald Reagan College Prep in Milwaukee. I debated policy at Reagan for four years, (`15-`19). (he/him/his).

Yes, email chain- thenimajn3b@gmai.com

TL;DR- Debate is a game. Analysis and argument-making win my ballot. Stay organized, consistent, and strategic and you'll have success in any round. My paradigm is quite lengthy, but don't let it deter you from running what you are the best at. There isn't a single way to win my ballot, there are arguments that I prefer, but that doesn't mean you should run them just to fit my vision of a debate round. A good rule of thumb is to do what you're the best at.

Specific Arguments- Don't get too caught up in all of this, it is just my preferences, I think if you tend to run a specific argument, then look into my preferences on this, but if not, this really isn't all too important. I tend to judge policy, but if you want to look into my preferences in LD, Parli or PF, that's near the bottom.

CP- It isn't too easy to win on a CP unless it is abusive. The debate community, in general, has seemed to forget something- perms are tests of competition. This is a saying that's been said and resaid a hundred times, without much of an understanding of its meaning. Perms do not offer any advocacy. Thus, the affirmative team cannot gain anything offensively from running a perm. One cannot perm a counterplan and make speeches centered around "The world of the perm." A perm is not advocacy, it is merely a test of competition, and a means to hinder the offense that the negative team can gain from running a CP. Also, CPs do not have to be topical. It is difficult to think of a CP that is not mutually inclusive, thus, it does not have to be topical. Presenting a Net Benefit in terms of a DA or a means to solve the Aff's contentions better than they are able to is one of the few ways I believe that offense can be gained by the negative team. A CP needs to have reasons why to vote for it, just CP text isn't going to move the needle for me. I think PICs are pretty cool, but also they're pretty dangerous if you're bad with theory. Related to this, I am a huge fan of theory in response to CP's. CPs tend to be pretty abusive if they aren't permeable, so take advantage of this!

DA- Admittedly, I've become more and more policy since graduating high school. I really like DAs- I think they're the easiest way for the neg to win in any round. With that being said, the ease is double-sided, as this non-complex nature doesn't hide any true motives, meaning they aren't very difficult to respond to. Putting it simply, a reliance on a DA as the neg's sole offense in a round makes my ballot very easy to fill out. Thus, if you plan on, and you want to run a DA, do it well. Missing an argument missed by either side not flowing makes it quite simple for one side to win quite easily. When it comes to big stick impacts, I am not going to bring any personal biases to conflict with the round. You're going to have to do that yourself on framework. Tell me why nuclear war doesn't matter, or why to prefer structural impacts. Please run framework that runs best in line with your impact, as it makes it easier to write my ballot.

Framework- Somehow I've managed to include the importance of framework in almost every single rundown of arguments. I think framework should be a thing in every single round. Run it well, respond to it well, and tell me what viewing the round under your framework means. I think unless it comes down to t or completely dropped arguments, I am going to use framework to decide my ballot on which impacts I see as important, and what mechanism is the most important to vote under. Framework should be the base of any well-built case, even if you are relying on low-probability, high-magnitude impacts. Please run this, as it makes the round make a lot more sense, and it makes it possible to remove any covert biases I have towards arguments or impacts.

K- I was a K debater in high school. I understand that something like Wilderson or any Capitalism K can be run against any affirmative. This is not necessarily a bad strategy, but it relies on the negative team winning and expanding upon the link debate and the alt debate (I don't think I've ever seen a K impact be contested). The weakest part of the K is generally its alternative. I do not require the alternative to be ontological per se for the negative team to win on a K, but I expect that the alt is well expanded upon and actually explained. Unless the aff is losing on case, I find it difficult to vote for a world that I don't really understand, and a muddy alt presents a confusing world. The same ideology about perms for CPs holds true for K's. The affirmative team cannot win on a perm without also winning case. The best-case scenario for the affirmative if their contestation on K/CP is a perm is that this perm is a wash. Because perms are tests of competition and not advocacy, offense cannot be gained by the perming team. Please tell me what voting for the K does. If it isn't anything out round, that's fine, but I want a ROTB on the K.

On Case- I think one of the most important parts of a debate is the affirmative team's framing of the round. To offset the neg getting the neg block, and back to back speeches, the affirmative teams get the first and last speech. Your should make the best use of this by telling me, and contesting what is the most important argument to vote on, or what theoretical lens to view this round through. I think this goes both ways- rounds have the most clash, meaning the best education and competitiveness when on case is responded to thoroughly and throughout the round. I understand it could be a team's strategy to completely disregard case and argue completely for their case or k, but by abandoning any argument on case, the framing of the round needs to be won as well. When it comes down to it- I'm going to go back on my flows and view the framing of the round in the 1ac. Even if case is a nonfactor, framing by the affirmative team, and contestation of this framing is incredibly important. On case proper- I love case turns. It's a lot easier to make turns when they're based off of your knowledge of the topic, and the current political happenings, as teams tend to rely too much solely on reading cards for case. Watch the news, read articles, and stay updated- this makes it easier to base case-specific turns around, and an easy way to take out a ton of aff offense. Flowing is probably the most important when it comes to responding to case. Flowing, and line by lines is what separates good and great debaters, and this is most important on case, as it is what the majority of rounds can come down to.

Speed- Speed is fine. If the other team can't handle it, speak up, please. I understand that rounds being online makes it quite difficult for those who had trouble with speed in person. Feel free to "clear" your opponents during the speech. If they don't change, then this is grounds for in round abuse if you want to run with an argument similar to this. In general, spreading your opponent out of the round isn't a very good strategy, but to each their own. If you start talking prior to the round, and your audio quality is poor, then I might ask you not to spread, because it isn't fair to anyone. If you don't adapt to your situation, then poor speaks should be expected. Just because you can spread, doesn't mean you should.

T- In order to win t, I think you have to be winning the argument convincingly. If rounds are close and the neg goes for t, then it was likely the wrong decision. Neg should go all in on t, at least eight minutes in the neg block and all five minutes in the 2NR. Explain to me what abuse occurred in the round, and have specific standards. I want contextualized abuse and voting issues if you expect me to vote for you on topicality. Is t an RVI? I don't know, but I'd love to find out. Do the work for me.

Theory- Since high school, I've fallen more and more in love with theory. I think that t can be run in basically any round, but it also can very easily be run poorly. One of the most important parts of either running or responding to t is making sure you flow. I don't think a team should go into a round expecting to run theory, but it is something that one may have in their back pocket in a response to a specific argument. One of the best parts about theory is that it hinges on thinking on the spot, as blocks really aren't a thing for most theory analysis. I think very little is off the table for theory, and this goes for the response to it. I'll listen to an RVI, but a lot of it just comes down to the work that you put in, and how well you flow.

LD Specific
-Do what you're the best at
-Frame how I should vote and see the round, I'm not going to do too much work for you
- I don't understand the hullabaloo about being nice, especially in LD; this isn't a manners class. We're here to debate, not to make each other feel better about ourselves and brown-nose the guy who's writing the ballot. Be aggressive, be confident, and just give me a competitive round where you are the best debater version of yourself.
- A climate of judging debaters based on how they dress or present themselves makes me sick to my stomach, please just do what you're the most comfortable with within the round.

Parli/NPDA Specific
-I'll pause POO's but not POI's
-I don't expect either side to accept more than two POI's during a speech; it is your side to advocate for yourself and be specific. Prior to answering a POI, I like to say "One out of two" or "Two out of two," just so I am blatantly consistent.
-If you're more comfortable with policy jargon, don't bother correcting yourself. I still view it as the Aff v Neg, rather than Gov v Opp.
-Give me a weighing mechanism or I'll just vote on net benefits.

PF Specific
-I'm not a big judge intervention guy in a round. I'm not going to step in if belittling is occurring. The majority of you are nearly adults, and I'm sure you can act like it.
-Please don't make me intervene in cross-fire
-Please just keep me posted on where you're going. Do whatever you want honestly.
-Don't interrupt or use crossfire to make arguments; it's not another rebuttal, it is a questioning period.
-Straight policy rounds get dry, throw some crazy philosophy in there if you feel like it.
-I've done PF, but I'm a policy debater at heart, aff is pro and neg is con

Policy Specific
-Open cross-ex is fine, utilize this however you want. Debates can be won and lost in CX
-Tech>Truth
-Impact calc in 2NR/2AR
-Splitting the block is a thing
-Don't be an a-hole. I understand that policy is generally one of the more competitive types of debate, but keeping your calm is important in CX. You can be witty without being mean
-Stay organized, signpost

A Final Word
I'm a white male, and debate is a community that has long been monopolized by people of my same race and gender. I have privileges that I may not be completely aware of and I may commit microaggressions within a round. Please tell me, privately or publically if I do something that makes anyone in the round uncomfortable.

Post-rounding is fine, I'm flawed as a person and a judge, and my paradigm is constantly adapting to the experiences I have and the rounds I have. I'll make mistakes, and miss analysis, and I apologize if I do. I try to be a good judge, but I'm a flawed human being just like you. I seem to update my paradigm after every tournament. My paradigm is far from ever complete, and I have rounds and experiences which shape what I value in a round, and what preferences I have.

If you have any questions about my ballot, or you want any extra advice, my email is thenimajn3b@gmail.com

About me

4 years policy debate Rufus King Highschool

3 years student congress Rufus King Highschool

3 Central Michigan University NFA-LD debate team

General things

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to argument

i'm good with speed, spreading

put me on the email chain asiakaye12@gmail.com

always give a ROB I will not do work for you tell me how I should be voting never drop framework even if you meet under your opponents framework say that.

tech over truth

keep flows clean, always give a rode map

use all your time for speeches and cx

Aff stuff

make sure you know your AFF love K aff's i'm very familiar with critical aff's you have to win your affirmative case to win the round. know the warrants in the 1ac you should know your case. judges can tell if you don't understand or passionate about your case I like all affs not against arguments. don't drop your aff make sure in each speech your giving warrants tell me how I should frame the round

Neg stuff

kritiks

love love kritiks ran them a lot in high school don't assume I know what your talking about don't leave me doing work for you at the end of the debate, the impact, alt, the link should be clear during your speech. the alt needs to be explained and compared to the world of the affirmative give evidence on why the alt solves better than the aff case. make sure the link chain is clear and you give a ROB

Topicality

Don't really like topicality I feel debate would be more useful talking about important topics not arguing on the rules of debate. will still vote on it if its dropped and extended

Counterplans

neg needs to prove the counterplan solves the case better than the aff plan. you should always have a net ben

PF

make sure to keep the flow clean and answer each argument, make sure to use your evidence and make it clear to the judge where the evidence is getting pulled from.

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

Teressa Shaw

Current Affiliations: None

Past/Debated: Rufus King High School

Pre-Round

My predispositions about particular arguments should not influence what you run (with a caveat). I have not judged ANY rounds on this topic.

I honestly believe that you should run the arguments you are comfortable with. Am I better for certain types of rounds? Maybe. Does that mean you should try a completely new strategy? If you want.

I have experience with most arguments so I believe you should run the arguments you know. Feel free to ask before round if you have any concerns about arguments. I'm currently working on updating my paradigm to include argument specific thoughts.

I will also try to leave biases out of decision-making as much as possible, but I am far from perfect.

I really really really dislike judge intervention. It makes me feel gross. Please don't put me in situations where I have to intervene aka situations where it isn't clear what I should vote on. Make it clear what arguments you think are most important and do the analysis yourself. In rounds where I have had to intervene, everyone was very unhappy so tell me what you think I should vote on.

Stealing prep will result in a loss of speaker points. Clipping cards will result in a loss and zero speaker points.

Being excessively rude irritates me greatly (and costs speaker points...). I think there is a distinction between assertive/confident and condescending. If you win the round, I'll vote for you but your speaker points will suffer.

Please add me to the email chain.

Background

I debated policy for four years with stronger background in critical/theory. Broke at nats/speaker in t20s //all sorts of irrelevant stuff. Researcher in immunology lab. I now judge -very- occasionally.

Logistics

I have thoughts about particular arguments and it's probably better to ask before round if you are concerned. I highly recommend this for any judge because, in my experience, folks tend to deviate away from paradigms.

I'm a terrible judge for science not real. However, I think discussions of science being bad are great (ex. the theft of HeLa cells demonstrating how horrible institutions have been).

Ks: Don't assume I know exactly what your argument or kritik means (even if you think you explained it well...).This would imply that I am willing to do work for you which I won't. That being said, I feel more comfortable evaluating these rounds than I would a round that came down to a politics disad. I like creative arguments, but have seen more teams fail to win on framework/theory debates in front of me.

T/FW/Theory: Yeah I group these things together if that tells you anything. I end up voting on these issues a lot more than I would expect. I'm not a fan of RVIs, but will listen to them if cheating is present. I haven't been compelled to vote on one yet.

I am probably better for critical rounds (especially if is critical race, gender, and/or queer theory) than old school policy but have done and understand both.

I can't specify whether I firmly "believe" in truth vs tech or tech vs truth because it rarely comes down to one of these things. However, I observe tech >> truth in my decisions.

If I am left wondering what I am voting for after the 2AR, I tend to vote neg on presumption if the neg has done a decent job of interacting with the aff.

While "debate is a game", I think there is room to make the game better. I have seen some really creative affs/strategies, but I have also seen affs/args written to avoid debating at all. I end up voting on fairness/ground more than I'd like to in rounds like that.

If you think something may be offensive, it often is.

Clash is important for many reasons. Engage the aff.

Don't steal prep, don't clip cards, and don't cheat. I expect students to time themselves and each other. Prep ends with the flash drive leaves the laptop. If it becomes a problem, then I will start the timer and I will be diligent. (**I will make prep exceptions in virtual debates if necessary).

Speaking fast is fine. Speaking clear is better.