Joshua Evers Paradigm

Last changed 4/14 5:25P CDT

Um, so, like, so, ummmm, so ... yeah.

He/Him/His pronouns

Add me to the email chain or involve me in flash trades -> noodleevers@gmail.com

I guess I should put my experience here:

I debated 3 years at Appleton East in PF, competing both in state and in the national circuit. Since graduation (2-3 years now), I have coached LD mainly on the national circuit.

General beliefs

How to win my ballot

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds (maybe that's bad, terminal defense is a thing, but I generally have a high threshold for terminal d). This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum specifically needs more flow judges that want to be there.

Speed

I do not care about how fast you talk in PF or local LD. For nat circuit LD, I can usually handle a 7-8 dependent on how tired or hungry I am (If it is an 8 am round, I'll prolly be a bit rusty so that that with a grain of salt). If I can't understand you, I will yell "Clear" (yeah, this almost never happens, y'all are pretty good at understanding when I'm tired). Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know.

Extensions

I guess I'm kinda picky about extensions. Just saying "extend this piece of evidence" is not gonna be enough in my eyes. I will only extend evidence that is warranted, especially if it is key to your offense.

Speaks

I will reward debaters for clarity, humor, tech skill, strategy, and topic knowledge. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average or didn't disclose :[ . 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

PF

Technical Beliefs about PF

EVIDENCE (updated 4/28/19)

- I've done a lot of thinking about evidence quality in PF specifically. I've come to the realization that paraphrasing is not just bad for the debate community (because it allows for power-tagging, misconstruing evidence, the whole shebang) it is also intellectually dishonest and should be punished. If you paraphrase cards in front of me in the constructive or rebuttal, I will regard that evidence as an analytic that has no empirical backing and you will likely get an L. If you don't have a card cut and instead pull up a pdf that makes it impossible to determine what you actually read in the round, I will also consider that an analytic and you will likely get an L. This is not negotiable. Cut cards, ask your coach the proper formatting, and PF will be much better. Strike me if you don't want to engage in norms that every other form of debate has practiced since at least the 70's.

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

- In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary. This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend. If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

SECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL

- I do not believe that that second speaking team must return and answer the entirety of the first rebuttal as the time skew is much too great. I do think that this second speaking team should adapt to the round and answer major offense that could be damning to them in the speech.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

- Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

ARGUMENTATION

- I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. and have had some decent experience evaluating these types of arguments in national circuit LD. Read my LD paradigm for thoughts on those more progressive arguments.

- I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

- PF specifically needs more T/Theory arguments. Too many of y'all are getting away with really bad interpretations of debate. I am not afraid to pull the trigger on disclosure good arguments and if you're not disclosing, particularly on the national circuit, you're going to have a rough time with me at the back of the room. Spending the extra minute to disclose your positions is not that tough and has never hampered good debates in LD and Policy. I expect the same in PF.

More evidence stuff that won't cost you an L but might lower you speaks

- During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. I prefer to use an email chain at the beginning of rounds (yes, even in pf - y'all gotta stop power tagging every damn card you read), but if you don't, evidence will be exchanged off of prep time unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence if not in an email chain after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Ok, if you’re a pfer, this is where you can check out (read the bottom if y'all feel like getting some extra speaker points tho).

LD

Great, you made it this far, congrats.

Topicality

Bad topicality debates are just the negative whining that “the aff is obviously untopical because we didn’t have any evidence prepared against it.” This is not a winning argument whatsoever. To more easily win a T debate, debaters should have two things:

1. A clear, exclusive interpretation of the resolution. This doesn't necessarily need to be carded.

2. An impact showing why your interpretation is better, whether that be a clear disadvantage to the opposing team’s interp or advantages to your interpretation. This includes clear impact calculus and comparison to outline which definition is superior for the activity and why.

I usually don't default to reasonability but can be persuaded to fit check interps. I often find myself in debates where t isn't really an issue, but often times negatives don't realize when they are ahead on the t debate. Either way, do what you do.

Counterplans

Bad, cheaty cp's are really bad, but good ones I really enjoy hearing. Don't be afraid to go for the PIC, process, or consult CP if the aff undercovers it. Don't let my predispositions decide the debate, particularly when the flow dictates it. Counterplan theory is a good way to answer this. I default to rejecting the argument and not the debater. Also, seeing as people in state (WI) don't really run counterplans that well, I need to hear a net benefit to the aff. If you don't have that it's going to be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Theory

I am not here to listen to Jake Nebel's stupid nonhypocritical theory. If you read that in front of me I will not be happy. (This is also the same dude that says stock issues like T and Theory shouldn't be a voting issue in LD. Stop listening to the garbage he spouts.)

I weigh theory in an offense-defense paradigm. If the negative gives some crappy answer to a theory argument that only has defense, don't be afraid to go for it. If you have the only offense, you'll win. Generally, I think theoretical objections are a reason to reject the argument (except for condo), but I can be persuaded otherwise if you show me a reason how the other team has caused irreparable damage to the fairness of the round. I don’t think that theory necessarily comes down to a debate of competing interpretations as it should in T debates, but if a question comes up as to where a bright line should be drawn between what is (for example) a process counterplan and what is not, you should be prepared to provide that bright line so that your theoretical objection has a clear basis as to what is and what is not legitimate. I do believe the negative in particular gains a lot from defending an interpretation of what is legitimate (especially as it pertains to conditionality). Additionally, slow down on the theory debate. I don't have your old ass condo block file in front of me like you do. If you just blow through like 5 subpoints in just as many seconds, I will probably not catch all of it. If I don't catch it, I won't be flowing the "extension" of it in later speeches.

Kritiks

Typically, I see K debates as a double-edged sword. Usually, teams either are great at what they’re doing and have blocked responses to typical 2AC answers and know how to employ those responses at later points in the debate OR a team throws together a 1NC shell and thinks if they say “it’s better to have no life than to live one with no value” enough times then they win. Don’t be the latter team. On the other hand, affirmatives should be far less fearful of the K. It truly isn’t all that much more than a uniqueness counterplan and a generic disad (most of the time). That being said here are the things I should see from a successful negative team debating the K:

1. A clear explanation of what the alternative does and why it solves

2. A link that is specific to the affirmative

3. An impact that is explained as per the context of the debate; the impact debate is oft-ignored by the negative

An explanation of an alternative shouldn’t just be “we break down capitalism.” You need to explain to me how. If I don’t know what the world of the alt is like it makes it hard for me to vote on it. A link specific to the affirmative should be more than just cherry-picking a representation from an impact in the 1AC. Tell me specifically how the aff presentation of that representation is especially problematic. The impact is where this debate is won and lost. Whether the impact comes from extinction, turning aff solvency, structural violence, etc. you need to tell me why your impact is worse in the context of what the impact to the affirmative is. Just because you’re reading a K doesn’t excuse you from doing impact calc. Do your K tricks and whatnot too. Floating PIKs, serial policy failure, etc.

K affs

I'm cool with them. I have had limited experience running and judging k affs, so take that with a grain of salt. T/Fw is usually a good response to K Affs, but that may just be my experience speaking.

As far as clash of rev debates go, I have little experience adjudicating or debating them. I'll try to judge them as best I can and have judged a fair number of them on the LD nat circuit, but do not construe that with me being comfortable with them (though I will try my best to interfere as little as possible)

Disads

A good disad should have a clear link and impact and be able to turn the impacts to the affirmative. It's cool if they act as the net benefit to the cp or on its own. Using the DA to turn the case is prolly a good thing. I love a good politics DA debate (but this congress is weird so the link and il is gonna be crucial to win).

Phil, Skep, and the like

- yeah, so ummmm...

- This is the thing I am least comfortable adjudicating. I'll evaluate it the best I can and have voted on phil plenty of times, so don't discourage that from letting you do your thing, but ... yeah.

One last thing,

"'"If you haven't disclosed you will not get above a 27."- Akhil Jalan' - Kedrick Stumbris" - Joshua Evers.

- Plz put me on the email chain --> noodleevers@gmail.com

Regards,

Judge person

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Tournament of Champions 4/17/2020 LD R4 Interlake AG Harker SS Neg
Tournament of Champions 4/17/2020 LD R1 Durham JP Damien ND Aff
Tournament of Champions 4/17/2020 LD R1 Harker AR Cardinal Gibbons RS Aff
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R6 Neenah WR Brookfield East IH Aff
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R6 Neenah WR Brookfield East IH Aff
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R5 Brookfield East NT Golda Meir DP Neg
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R5 Brookfield East NT Golda Meir DP Neg
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R4 Marquette Univ SP Brookfield East MK Aff
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R4 Marquette Univ SP Brookfield East MK Aff
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R3 Verona Area VK Bradley Tech DS Aff
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R3 Verona Area VK Bradley Tech DS Aff
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R2 Brookfield East RM West Bend BB Neg
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R2 Brookfield East RM West Bend BB Neg
The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/18/2020 LD R1 Marquette Univ SL Menomonee Falls AS Aff
WDCA Pref Sandbox 1/18/2020 LD R1 Marquette Univ SL Menomonee Falls AS Aff
Fox Valley State Scrimmage 1/11/2020 LD R3 Appleton East MW Appleton East OS Neg
Lancer Invitational at BCHS 12/14/2019 VLD R5 Bradley Tech AC Sussex Hamilton AD Neg
Lancer Invitational at BCHS 12/14/2019 NPF R4 Brookfield Central MH Menomonee Falls SL Aff
Lancer Invitational at BCHS 12/14/2019 VLD R3 Bradley Tech JH Marquette Univ SP Neg
Lancer Invitational at BCHS 12/14/2019 NLD R2 Marquette Univ PV Sussex Hamilton AN Neg
Alexandra Hoecherl Challenge at Appleton East 12/6/2019 LD Octo Marquette Univ SL Neenah MO Aff Aff on a 3-0
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD Semi Lakeville LS West Des Moines Valley AJ Aff Neg on a 2-1
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD Quar West Des Moines Valley AJ Appleton North MU Aff Aff on a 3-0
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD Octa West Des Moines Valley RS Appleton North MU Neg Neg on a 2-1
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD R7 West Des Moines Valley AJ Lakeville LS Aff
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD R6 Brookfield East RM West Des Moines Valley LG Neg
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD R4 West Des Moines Valley RS Neenah MO Aff
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD R3 Marquette Univ SL West Des Moines Valley KC Neg
Badgerland 11/15/2019 LD R1 Millard North CP Brookfield East DJ Aff
West Bend Debate Extravaganza 11/2/2019 LD V R5 Brookfield Central FH Menomonee Falls AS Aff
West Bend Debate Extravaganza 11/2/2019 LD V R4 Brookfield East RM Bradley Tech AC Neg
West Bend Debate Extravaganza 11/2/2019 LD V R2 Golda Meir DP Neenah MO Neg
West Bend Debate Extravaganza 11/2/2019 LD V R1 Appleton North MK Bradley Tech JH Neg
Neenah Invitational 10/19/2019 LD R5 Bradley Tech JP Sussex Hamilton AN Neg
Neenah Invitational 10/19/2019 LD R4 Brookfield Central PP West Bend CM Neg
Neenah Invitational 10/19/2019 LD R2 Golda Meir SR Sussex Hamilton RP Aff
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/19/2019 LD Octo Brookfield East AK Brookfield East NT Neg Neg on a 3-0
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/19/2019 LD R4 Bradley Tech AC Neenah WL Aff
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/19/2019 LD R4 Appleton North FB Brookfield East AS Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/12/2019 LD R5 Golda Meir DF Whitefish Bay DC Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/12/2019 LD R3 Bradley Tech MS Brookfield East AS Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/12/2019 LD R1 West Bend East CMa Brookfield East AK Aff
Northern Wisconsin District Tournament 1/5/2019 PF R3 103 106 Aff Aff on a 2-1
Alexandra Hoecherl Challenge at Appleton East 11/30/2018 PF Final Brookfield East AS Madison West CR Aff Aff on a 4-3
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD Sextos Harvard-Westlake SP Strake Jesuit College Prep BE Aff Aff on a 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Cypress Bay IM Bronx HS Of Science AW Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Scarsdale WC Greenhill AZ Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R6 Union TR West Des Moines Valley CT Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R5 West Des Moines Valley AJ Greenhill AM Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R2 Santa Monica RE Loyola JC Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R1 Lakeville North ST William G. Enloe AC Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R1 Colleyville Heritage IN Greenhill MR Neg
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD Quar Apple Valley SA West Des Moines Valley CT Neg Neg on a 3-0
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R7 Norman CS West Des Moines Valley AW Aff
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R6 Apple Valley BS West Des Moines Valley CL Aff
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R5 Lakeville NB West Des Moines Valley LB Neg
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R4 Lakeville ST West Des Moines Valley CT Neg
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R3 Lakeville LS Apple Valley DM Aff
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R2 West Des Moines Valley JW Neenah MO Aff
Badgerland 11/9/2018 LD R1 West Des Moines Valley KC Neenah MA Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD Octos Quarry Lane SK Greenhill MR Aff Neg on a 2-1
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD Double Greenhill BZ Strake Jesuit VL Aff Aff on a 3-0
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD Triple McNeil AR Kamiak NB Neg Neg on a 3-0
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R6 Edina RM Lake Highland Prep RG Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R5 Pennsbury CZ Strake Jesuit College Prep DH Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R4 Strake Jesuit VL Quarry Lane SK Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R3 Homewood-Flossmoor AB Strake Jesuit AMe Neg
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R2 Loyola AO New Trier TS Aff
Apple Valley MinneApple Debate 11/2/2018 VLD R1 Lakeville South NB Halstrom RA Neg
Brookfield East Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 LDV R5 Brookfield East AS Whitefish Bay DC Aff
Brookfield East Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 LDN R4 Whitefish Bay GD Bradley Tech AS Aff
Brookfield East Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 LDV R3 Sussex Hamilton MK Sheboygan North EK Aff
Brookfield East Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 LDN R2 Neenah WR West Bend KK Aff
Brookfield East Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 LDV R1 West Bend CM Brookfield East NT Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD Octos William G. Enloe TG Harrison EL Aff Neg on a 2-1
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD Double Harker AM Kamiak NB Neg Neg on a 2-1
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R6 Strake Jesuit College Prep DH Harker AM Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R5 West Des Moines Valley MD Lakeville LS Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R5 Millard North CP American Heritage Plantation BG Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R4 Eagan AI West Des Moines Valley KC Neg
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R2 Bergen County Academies MS Edina SO Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R2 William G. Enloe TG Edina SC Aff
Mid America Cup 9/21/2018 VLD R1 Oak Hall KZ Harker SS Aff
The Hilltopper Classic 9/15/2018 PF R5 St. Ambrose GlTa Brookfield East FK Aff
The Hilltopper Classic 9/15/2018 LD R4 Brookfield East NT Golda Meir DP Aff
The Hilltopper Classic 9/15/2018 LD R3 Whitefish Bay HJ Bradley Tech GA Neg
The Hilltopper Classic 9/15/2018 LD R2 Bradley Tech AC Whitefish Bay GD Aff
The Hilltopper Classic 9/15/2018 LD R1 Marquette Univ RP Whitefish Bay HR Neg
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD Qtr Brookfield East RL Golda Meir JS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD R6 Marquette Univ KT Brookfield East EC Neg
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD R4 Sheboygan North RW Brookfield East AS Neg
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD R4 Waukesha South SV Brookfield East SK Aff
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD R3 Brookfield East NT Sheboygan South NF Aff
Wisconsin State Debate Tournament 1/20/2018 LD R3 Brookfield East LF Neenah MA Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/13/2018 LD R4 Menomonee Falls AS West Bend West CM Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/13/2018 PF R3 West Bend East CM Brookfield Central KJ Neg
MCFL Debate Qualifier 1/13/2018 LD R1 Golda Meir IL Bradley Tech DS Aff
Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge at Appleton East 12/1/2017 PF Finla West Bend BK Middleton LS Aff Aff on a 3-0
Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge at Appleton East 12/1/2017 PF Sem Middleton LS West Bend GK Aff Aff on a 3-0
Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge at Appleton East 12/1/2017 PF Qtr JMM HS West Bend GK Neg Neg on a 2-1
No Frills 11/18/2017 LD R5 Appleton North HP Sussex Hamilton ED Neg
No Frills 11/18/2017 PF R3 Brookfield East WB Sheboygan North PK Aff
No Frills 11/18/2017 PF R2 Appleton North KP Muskego SW Aff
No Frills 11/18/2017 LD R1 Bradley Tech AC Sheboygan South NF Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R7 Lakeville South TG Janesville Parker AW Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R6 West Bend East MS Madison West AO Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R5 Juan Diego Catholic CS Lakeville South HN Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R4 Brother Rice MS SF Roosevelt CC Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R3 James Madison Memorial CP Millard North SW Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R2 Madison West AL Theodore Roosevelt KG Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/10/2017 PF R1 Brookfield East GH West Bend East GK Aff
West Bend Debate Tournament 11/4/2017 VLD R5 Brookfield East NA Sheboygan North RW Aff
West Bend Debate Tournament 11/4/2017 VLD R3 Bradley Tech AP Brookfield Central VT Aff
West Bend Debate Tournament 11/4/2017 VLD R2 Whitefish Bay HJ Menomonee Falls AS Aff
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R5 Marquette Univ SL Neenah Joint MA Neg
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDV R2 Bradley Tech AP West Bend ASt Aff
BEHS 10/7/2017 LDN R1 Brookfield East ML Bradley Tech ZL Neg
Rufus King 9/30/2017 LD R5 Brookfield East RK West Bend CM Neg
Rufus King 9/30/2017 LD R4 Brookfield East LF Bradley Tech AB Aff
Rufus King 9/30/2017 LD R3 Golda Meir JS Brookfield East AB Aff
Rufus King 9/30/2017 PF R2 Brookfield East SD Sheboygan North ZS Aff
Rufus King 9/30/2017 LD R1 Whitefish Bay BW Brookfield East RL Neg
UW Madison Bucky HS Invitational 9/23/2017 PF R5 Madison West JC Waukesha South VL Aff
UW Madison Bucky HS Invitational 9/23/2017 PF R4 Madison West JA Brookfield Central TK Aff
UW Madison Bucky HS Invitational 9/23/2017 NPF R2 Madison West CJ Brookfield Central KM Aff
UW Madison Bucky HS Invitational 9/23/2017 PF R1 St. Ambrose PK Madison West WS Neg
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF Semifi JMM MS Middleton BS Aff Aff on a 2-1
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF Octofi Madison West JW Appleton North BK Aff Aff on a 3-0
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF R5 St. Ambrose KL Middleton CM Neg
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF R4 Middleton KD JMM VY Neg
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF R2 Brookfield East HC Muskego NO Aff
2017 WSDT 1/21/2017 PF R2 Madison West LL Appleton North PL Aff
MFCL Debate Qualifier 1/14/2017 PF R5 West bend West HK Brookfield East SD Aff
MFCL Debate Qualifier 1/14/2017 PF R4 Brookfield East BM West bend West GW Aff
MFCL Debate Qualifier 1/14/2017 LD R2 Brookfield East NA Bradley Tech QC Aff
MFCL Debate Qualifier 1/14/2017 LD R1 Brookfield East RL Golda Meir IL Aff
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF F James Madison Memorial VY Brookfield East BM Neg Neg on a 2-1
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 LD Q Whitefish Bay AP Brookfield East SK Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 LD O Brookfield East AS Neenah LE Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF R6 West Bend HK Appleton North BK Neg
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF R5 Neenah LR Brookfield Central RA Neg
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF R4 Brookfield Central KL James Madison Memorial CN Neg
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF R3 West Bend KW Sheboygan North NB Aff
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 PF R2 West Bend GW James Madison Memorial RT Neg
The Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge 12/2/2016 LD R1 Brookfield East TG Appleton North MT Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R7 Millard North NY Blake OC Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R6 Blake GJ Brookfield East MB Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R5 Lakeville CN Rufus King CM Aff
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R3 Sheboygan North NV West Bend KW Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R2 St. Ambrose AL West Bend MS Neg
Badgerland Debate Tournament 11/11/2016 PF R1 Evanston Township UO St. Ambrose MP Aff