Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

Experience: 4 years judging; 1 year policy, 3 years LD/PF

In an LD round, whoever achieves the accepted value and value criterion better will win the round. I’m traditional in that I do like you to debate the framework. Don’t ignore it and flow it through the round.

I value clash. That goes for all divisions. Make sure you’re attacking your opponent’s case equally to defending yours. Give me line-by-line analysis and impact analysis. It’s nice if you tell me your voters, but if you don’t, I’ll fall back to the framework debate and decide who achieves it better. I don't like theory arguments, unless you can make it clear on what the theory is and explain it thoroughly.

In policy I flow all arguments. I look for solvency in the round. If there is no solvency then I'll weigh the round based on impacts. Counterplans are okay, I’m less familiar with Kritiks. If you’re going to run it, make sure you explain it well.

I don’t prefer speed. I can handle it to an extent but be clear and enunciate. If you’re going too fast I’ll tell you. I do allow using your phone as timers.

I will only disclose if I know my decision. If I do not know my decision, I will let the students go while I look through my flow and decide.

I also dont give oral critiques, i will write them on the ballot.

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow 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 pretty 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.
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.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/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 largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. 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.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: 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. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

Basic information:

Former head debate coach at Waukesha South HS for 37 years (39 coaching in Wisconsin, 2 in College). Policy debater in college, and in Wisconsin HS debate. That means 45 years in debate.
As a retired coach, the following General Debate Positions information is critical.

General Debate Positions

As an old guy, I believe debate - in any format - is primarily an oral communication activity. As such, my general approach as a judge is as a critic of argument. That means that I want to hear good clash between the two sides (advocating for their side). I need the help of debaters to present their arguments (data, claim, backing, rebuttal) in a clear fashion. If I can't hear it, I have trouble flowing it. If I don't flow it, and no one talks about it, I assume it wasn't important. But even if I flow it, if it is important, it should be pushed (that's advocacy). A good debate tells me a "reasonable" story that advocates for or against the resolution and reflects the give and take that took place in the round.

I usually say that I am Tabla Rasa -- as I literally let the debaters tell me how to vote, but the preceding paragraph overrides.

Bottom line: I am guided by the arguments of the debaters, even if they are not the strongest arguments.

I reward debaters with comprehensive strategic positions. This means the individual arguments should fit into an integrated position. I will vote on case or plan. The earlier you indicate what you’re going for, the happier I will be. Impact evaluation makes my decision less arbitrary, so I feel better if there’s lots of impact analysis.

From here, I'll address some format type issues, but recommend you read it all.... It's not that long.

Policy Debate Considerations

Policy debate is a team activity that depends on the individual efforts of each person. As such, I do not like tag team Cross ex. If a partner screws up the strategy, you'll have to adapt.

A perfect debate round consists of a clear, persuasive presentation of a reason to change the status quo with an opponent who challenges the reasons to change, shows clear disadvantages, and challenges solvency. Both sides then push their issues, and at the end, I have two or three conflicting issues that ANYONE could identify as crucial. I prefer when the arguments take me to a clear and convincing burden of proof, but can deal with the greater weight of the credible evidence. Unfortunately, many of the rounds I judge end up being decided by a scintilla of the evidence (and I don't like it.)

You should debate for me as if I were someone you wanted to impress. I want to understand your arguments (and hope I do), but I want to be impressed by your presence in the round. Speed is a "skill," not a presence. Presence comes from communication skills. Delivery I can understand, control over cross examinations, the ability to explain the arguments in the round and why your positions are stronger.

I look at all or nothing issues (like topicality) first. The high stakes nature of these issues makes them a priori. I will vote on a priori issues.

As for counter-plans and kritiks, I'm old, and actually believe that counter-plans (They must be non-topical, competitive, and net-beneficial.) give up too much potential negative ground. And Kritiks are generally weak disadvantages. But, if you run it, go for it, and win it. If you do, you will likely win the round.

I am not a believer in conditionality. Advocates are often not conditional. However, I have coached and voted for conditional positions. Sometimes they make the most sense and are reasonable.

As for theory, I once argued debate theory in front of Wayne Thompson who had written a number of debate and argumentation texts. Be sure you are right, and that the theory argument is important. Your time is precious.

Cross examination (in LD or Policy) is a critical block of time. If you can get your opponent into a dilemma and can use it, that is often the most persuasive of techniques. I listen to CX, and appreciate CX that makes a point. I understand that understanding your opponent's position is your first priority. The second is to win the CX time period with good questioning skills. Finally, I am shocked when the CX yields significant admissions from your opponents or reveals significant omissions in your opponent's position, but I never hear about those things in the remaining speeches.

In the end, I will be asked to say who I thought "did a better job of debating." I will decide based on what happened in the round and, hopefully, that will be issue-based.

Most importantly, I want to know why you think you've won the debate.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Considerations

If you have read this far, you know that advocacy and persuasion are critical to me.

That said, while I believe that selling your position is way more important than values/criteria debate, you as a debater have choices. When we are done, I want to know why you win.

In a good debate, I will be presented with two competing views of the world and will be asked to choose one. One of the competing views of the world I will accept is that the resolution is false.

Again, I what to know why you think you won the debate.

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.

Name: Henry Wehrs
E-mail: hdwehrs@gmail.com

Hello,

I debated 4 years of policy in high school (2008-2012). I judged for a bit after high school, but it's been a while.

I am a tabula rasa judge. You are responsible for telling me which argument(s) are the most important. I'll listen to anything. But if you don't tell me how to prioritize your arguments, I'll do it myself.

STYLE

1. Speed is okay to a point - I have never enjoyed spread, and I don't accept it in novice. Speed must be extremely clear. I will say clear once or twice. If I say "speed", it means I will quit flowing until you adjust.
2. Open C-X - do not dominate your partner's C-X, it will cost you speaker points.
3. Organization makes for a great debate: line-by-line, signposting, and roadmaps (10 seconds and I start the timer) are all things I look for.

Do not: hand your partner papers during a speech, hover over opponents, be rude, etc.

If you want permission to do something during a speech other than sit down and take notes, ask your opponents for permission before the round starts.

ARGUMENTS

I will not encourage or discourage any form of argument from you. I try to come in with as blank a slate as possible.

And again, it's been a while. If you want to make complex arguments, explain them to me. Do not assume I understand your jargon, the philosophical underpinnings of your argument, etc. One thing debate is supposed to do is teach you how to talk about complex things coherently. So try it on me.

Being out of the debate world a while, I'm sure plenty has changed. My best advice for you to win a round with me - do not assume I know what you're talking about. I don't like jargon. I like logic, organization, and clarity.