I am a new judge. I am also a former debater and currently work as an attorney. I appreciate it when teams are professional and allow one another to answer questions and do not mock or roll their eyes at the other team's arguments. I prefer that teams not make crazy arguments that are divorced from logic and common sense, but I rely upon the other team to call out such arguments.

I debated for Mukwonago High School from 2011-2014

Debate was my favorite part of high school. This activity is something I truly enjoy, so even if I am not super familiar with the topic, I'm here for the spirit of the sport.

When I'm judging, I am most concerned about what is the most logical. (I was a 2A and one of my favorite phrases was "try or die for the aff") Please don't make me make connections or draw conclusions because certain cards were dropped or you just didn't flow the argument all the way through. I think of myself as defaulting to a "policymaker" paradigm a lot because I like arguments that are logical and consistent.

I will time you and I also hope you're timing yourself because there is nothing like not knowing how much time you've got left in the 1AR.

Things I enjoy (policy):

- Politics DAs(when I was in high school I struggled with these DAs but now they make so much more sense because of how little our government has accomplished in the past 10 years since I started debating)

-Topicality (I think this is a particularly important issue if you are dealing with an unfamiliar aff and can provide examples of which plans would actually work under your interpretation- fair warning, I enjoy the technicality of this argument but I will not vote solely on it) *usually.

-Counterplans (sometimes it hurts me to vote for essentially a different aff, but if your counterplan addresses solvency deficits better than the aff and is actually catered to the specific aff you're facing, you're going to get my vote. But please please please don't do a PIC- I will be annoyed and triggered.)

Things I enjoy (PF):

-Evidence: quality over quantity and demonstrate an understanding of your evidence; basically, it is important to explain why this piece of evidence is important and why it is better than your opponents. Please also understand where a statistic comes from and the context behind it.

-Weighing is SUPER important in the round. In your final focus, I really like it when debaters tell me where I should be voting and why.

-When extending an argument, please articulate why I should be pulling it through, not just "pull this through, they didn't address it."

-During crossfire, I will listen, but if there is something brought up you want me to pay attention to, you need to mention it during your speech.

-Framework can become a voting issue for me. I have definitely voted on it before, but it has to relate to the arguments.

Please please please give me a road map before you start your speech. I also appreciate sign-posting during your speech.

Thing(s) I am sometimes skeptical of:

-K's (I have trouble grasping the higher level because I think it distracts from what I think the main purpose of the debate is which is passing a policy or not passing a policy based on it's effectiveness and likelihood, for me. BUT I will enjoy a K debate if you actually understand what you're saying and not just reading cards without any analysis.)

Some decorum:

-Please be respectful and courteous people

-On CX please try not to interrupt one another between the question and answer

-Don't steal prep time

-If possible, please have your camera on when you're speaking (I understand if it is not possible)

I was a PF debater in high school, have been judging for years and have recently started coaching.

PF: I am a flow judge and like to see a clean line-by-line in rebuttal. Be sure you are not only responding to the argument your opponents' present but also the impact. Tell me why they can't access their impact in rebuttal. In summary, you should begin tying up any loose ends and begin to weigh. Tell me why your opponents can't access their impacts or why your impacts are bigger and better. Lives are a good default impact that is easy to compare. Final focus should be almost entirely voters. Give me 2 or 3 good reasons why I should vote for you. Don't make final focus a mini rebuttal. A good final focus does go over the entire round or every argument. Only focus on what you think you're winning. In terms of framework, unless one is proposed by either team I will default to util. In summary and final focus, tell me how your arguments/impacts align with the framework and why your opponents aren't meeting the framework.

LD: I have less experience in LD but will be able to follow more complex arguments. Be sure to talk about impacts explicitly and how they align to your value and criterion. Focus on the topic at hand, not the nature of debate or how your opponent is debating, except if they are being discriminatory. I am a flow judge through and through. Spend time developing clear answers to values and impacts that your opponent brings up and counter any arguments brough up against your case. A lot of LD arguments can become convoluted so take time to be clear so I have a clear understanding of what you are trying to say.

Speed: I can understand speed, but the faster you talk the less I will write down. As a flow judge, talking incomprehensibly or too fast could be detrimental to your success in the round.

Roadmaps: I won't time your roadmaps as long as you identify them as roadmaps before you start talking. Keep them brief. Don't waste time by saying that the order will be con then pro during first rebuttal. If you are going to talk about specific arguments identify those in your roadmap.

Also if it sounds like you can't breath, you're talking too fast.

Overall: Be civil. Don't yell at your opponents, partner or me.

I am a relatively new judge, having served as one in 3 events before (all in this latest season). I am a senior executive at a Fortune 10 company in the healthcare / pharma space. My background is fairly international as I grew up in Brazil and have travelled extensively around the world. I was originally an engineer, but went to business school in Chicago 25 years ago and have since been in the Corporate world.

In terms of what I generally like to see in the debates, I would say the main point is I prefer quality over quantity. In my limited experience judging, I find that trying to cover too much material means there is little time to clearly articulate your points and making your case convincing. It is also very difficult for a judge (maybe just me) to follow when someone reads 4 pages worth of materials in a minute. So my advice is use your time wisely to make your points convincing, take a breath when needed and focus on the main points you are trying to make.

Finally, it is important to make points based on strong and logical rationale. Flawed logic is generally a killer in debates.

Good luck and I hope I can meet you!

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

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches?

A: Not too fast

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Put yes & what you will do to show they are too fast or unclear. Otherwise, put no.

A: I would love too, but it is honestly hard given the speed. So don't assume I will be able to.

Evaluating the Round

1. Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? Click or tap here to enter text.

A: Equally

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? Click or tap here to enter text.

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Click or tap here to enter text.

A: Preferably yes

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Click or tap here to enter text.

A: Poor analytics will kill your chances, but evidence is important

What school(s) are you affiliated with? -- Middleton High School

Were you a competitor when in school? If so, what style of debate did you do and for how many years? -- No.

How often do you judge public forum debate? -- I've just started this year.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Please keep it clear. -- Don't speak fast.

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? -- No.

Evaluating the Round

Do you prefer arguments over style, style over arguments, or weigh them equally? -- Equally

What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? -- A summary of key points.

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

Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? -- Equally.

Other Notes

In a few sentences, describe the type of debate you would like most to hear or any other things debaters/coaches should know about your judging style. -- Please make your key arguments clear and project your speaking voice as if addressing an audience.

Background: 4 years Brookfield East PF, nsda, ncfl, gold toc.

Email stuff to: akashmoorching17@gmail.com

FW Prefs (Wisco heavy):

I think that local circuit frameworks like minimizing oppression, maximizing freedom, and the way Kant/other phil is read on the Wisconsin circuit are incredibly nonstrategic. These frameworks offer you very little offensive flexibility. If you want to run it, you'll need to dedicate a lot of time on the framework layer and have strong FW justifications, preferably with a syllogism/metaethics, which you can't really do without spreading.

Realistically, Util justifications are a lot more time-efficient. Again, I vote off the flow, but if you run a fundamentally weak strategy in a game revolving around strategy, then that's probably not a good idea. One thing that I've noticed after judging in Wisconsin is that there's no skill discrepancy between the schools that are winning versus the ones that are losing. The only difference is that the ones who are winning are adapting their strategy to the times, while the ones who are losing continue to run the same weak arguments.

All the debate schools in Wisconsin are small. Learn how to wiki mine. Understand the basics of progressive debate here: https://circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Main_Page. You can adapt or you can continue to lose.

Thanks for debating! Hopefully we can have a fun, enjoyable round =)

Stuff about me:

You can probably think of me as a lazy flow judge - I can usually keep up, but I'm not going to get everything if its 10000 per min

I did four years of PF and spent the last year on the nat circuit (did alr with a couple bid, but nothing crazy). Currently Icompete in BP in college (who knows why) and its going pretty solidly

Yes, I like email chain, and yes, pls add me (pasikanti@wisc.edu)

I hated adapting to judges, so for the most part, I'll try to adapt to you instead. So just debate how you want and as long as its not crazy, I'll follow along and we can have a better round!

Now onto the debate stuff

PF:

I've had a lot of experience with this, and a lot of different styles going from wisco to the nat circ, so I'm probably good here

Speed doesn't really matter (again, be reasonable with that and make sure your actually speaking words)

For most things, I'll probably understand what your talking about, but it doesn't hurt for you to explain it anyways

Signposting is good, pls do it

Don't need to extend card names --- speech docs are especially helpful though

I also hated extending warranting and impacts, but thats also why i lost round so you should do it if im your judge

Weighing is good, i would recommend you do a lot of it, especially in summary and FF

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary --- depends if your first or second obviously

Prolly nothing new after first summary, and if there is you get new responses in first final or just say that its new lol (or be safe and respond)

Pls cut your cards, and I mean don't just send a link of text - have the card cut with highlighting, etc...

If you're going for Ks, T, theory, etc.... I have a bit of experience with this, but just in case, make sure you get the warranting it as best as possible

Nothing racist, homophobic, sexist, promoting self-harm, etc... etc.. Y'all know what I mean, just don't be that person

Anything Other Format:

Skim the pf section for generic info, but I will try my best to judge whatever event this is. Speech docs are usually particularly helpful for events that are faster, and ev based (ld, policy, etc..)

Ks, T, theory, etc... is bigger in other events, so a little bit more here:

Theory - I'm pretty solidly versed in (just don't run it on people who clearly have no idea what your talking about, it makes the round less fun, it truly doesn't educate anyone in the round, and most importantly, I will hate you for it) (I also like disclosure)

Ks - I've only really read cap, so that's about the the extent of my experience on this. That said, I do have the generics of most of the literature bases, however, this isn't a get out of jail free card - make sure you explain and warrant everything and do it as slow as possible for me (pls and ty) I'm also a fan of performance, although the brightline for winning is a bit higher

For policy, my friend says that DAs are the best and should be in every 1NC.

Again because it's important, nothing racist, homophobic, sexist, promoting self-harm, etc... etc.. Y'all know what I mean, just don't be that person

Literally just have a good time, at the end of the day, it's just a game

prakash.dhruv26@gmail.com --- add me to the chain AND please ask questions about anything

Background: 4 yrs of PF at Middleton (WI); state champ + qualled to TOC/nats; studying international affairs and data science at gwu; name pronounced “droov” (rhymes with move)

*If there is anything in my paradigm that is unclear please ask me before the round*

- Tech > truth and i’ll flow the whole round (except cross)

- Best way to win is to signpost, go line-by-line, and weigh

- Probably don’t go above like 300wpm without sending a doc

- You need cards for everything (with citations and highlighting)

- Please extend args and impacts into summary/final but give me the warrant, don’t just say author/year

- If it’s not in summary/final I won’t be voting on it

- Don’t be mean and have fun for good speaks

- Trigger warnings are very important (if ur not sure just ask or play it safe)

- Good with theory, ok with Ks, no tricks

If you want more detail: I judge similarly to this guy, him, and her

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

I currently work at Froedtert Hospital as a staffing coordinator for 3 departments. Persuasiveness is a necessary skill to successfully do my job. I find it important to understand different perspectives and to promptly reach a decision based upon evidence. The confidence in which you present yourself can really make a difference.

My style is that I like rounds to flow well and focus on arguments rather than evidence allegations. I will use the following paradigm template will be answered near term.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Fast is okay as long as words are pronounced clearly.

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Sure, but I'll adapt to the norm.

Evaluating the Round

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

2. What do you see as the role of the final focus in the round? The final focus should wrap up the case and is highly weighted.

3. If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Only if no new argument is made which is against the rules.

4. Do you weigh evidence over analytics, analytics over evidence, or weigh them equally? Analytics slightly more because I try to understand the speakers analysis of the evidence to frame the argument.

Other Notes

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

I want the speakers to be organized, confident, polite, and respectful. I've witness during and after rounds both passive aggressiveness as well as bad sportsmanship from the winners. Speakers will get deducted points if not presented self well.