I debated public forum in high school, and I'm pretty traditional. Clash with your opponents, weigh arguments, don't spread, and clearly roadmap your speeches. Please be courteous to your fellow debaters.

they/them pronouns pls

I debated for four years at Washington HS in Sioux Falls, SD. I went to NSDA nationals all four years I was in high school, breaking my senior year and made it to quarterfinals of CFL nationals my senior year. I currently am a freshman and debate at UMKC.

I read mostly performance/kritikal arguments my junior year in high school but read "traditional policy" arguments the other my first two years with a mix of the both my senior year. I go back and forth between being a 2A and a 2N.

I will listen and vote on nearly anything.

If you say something racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. in round you are going to lose.

Topicality- Let me start by saying you don't have to be topical. I enjoy really fleshed out topicality arguments though. I went for this argument almost every neg round my senior year.

Disads- They are fine. I will be happier if you do specific link analysis and a good amount of impact calc.

Counterplans- They are also fine. I like it when neg teams tell me how they solve the internal links of the aff instead of asserting that they access the same level of solvency.

Kritiks- I read a lot of queer, neolib, security, and fem ks when I was in high school. I like K debates but I think the neg needs to contextualize their link to the aff (just saying state bad is not enough).

Theory- I think its fun but it NEEDS to be warranted out.

*** I like when people are having fun, are passionate about what they are discussing, and feel comfortable***

I like being on the email chain - braedendecker0@gmail.com

No prep for flashing

Tag team cross-x okay dokey

Clash is cool (line by line even cooler)

Claim and warrant(s)

If..then statements (especially for overviews)

Previous Experience: 4 years policy, state champion in South Dakota, have argued policy, performance, and critical styles. I help coach Washington High School.

Speed: I think I am probably around an 8 or 9 for speed, I don't think you giving me a copy of the speech allows you to be less clear. I think if you are going so fast that you cannot emphasize key sentences or words you really want me to catch it is probably too fast.

Theory: Okay with generic theory arguments I think they should be used by both teams to advance their positions, understanding when a theory argument helps you and when it helps you on more then just that singular flow is always a plus for me. I think it is still challenging for me to vote on theory when it doesn't become emphasized if you want to win me on condo bad make sure its 5 minutes in the 2ar. When theory goes deep and is nuanced I think it's great!

Counter Plans: Well worded plan texts are amazing, well-worded permutations to those plan texts equally good. I love the technical side of good counterplan debate. I think on average I will allow more "techy" things to occur when it comes to this type of debating (example being aff kicking all advantages in order to create offense on perms).

Counter Plan PICS: Can make sense in some situations, overall think most abuse claims can be very justified but when the distinction of what the Aff doesn't cover is made as early as 1st cross-x it's hard to punish a negative team that understands flaws in the aff plan enough to the extent that they can create ground over bad plan texts and specific instances the plan shouldn't cover or doesn't cover.

DAs: I love disad debate. I really look for unique, interesting, and well-researched scenarios. Your scenario should articulate solid internal links and impacts as well as paint a good picture for me at the end of the round. Please please please, if you are going for this, impact calc is a must. This should be half of the 2NR. Generics are okay. Good Generic Disad debate is very nice and hearing individual nuanced takes on a common disad is really refreshing. Generic disad walls (think 3-4) are okay but the above still applies, if you are doing this strategy go for 1 in 2nr.

Kritik: I think K debate is some of the most educational debate there is. I really enjoy the framework side of this debate and the weighing mechanisms being discussed for the round. I like performative elements especially when they are used strategically (think 1nr blocks creating competitive reasons to vote on performativity alone). I think conditional critics are usually bad for fairness / hurt the alt in some way. I would like to think I have an extensive knowledge of literature but this is not true in many cases where the majority of the study is only a single author or a newly emerging school of thought, this doesn't mean don't go for it, it does mean I will probably be spending extra time reading through the evidence to get a thesis of their theory / using some Wikipedia articles to help fill in gaps (I will not extend this into the debate round for you).

Performance: If you are running anything that might be considered performance you need to actually use the performative parts in your aff, don't read a poem and never bring it up again, I think if it has performance that should be a central part of your argument.

Framework: I like framework debate, good framework debate is a pain to untangle and resolve but I feel like it always gives some sort of insight into the debate. I like offense/defense on the framework debate. Warrants are extremally important on this flow, don't leave me with open ends and small sentences.

Speaker Points: If you show me your knowledge of your preferred argument I will give you good speaker points. I think I probably give higher speaker points than other judges on average.

Things to note

I try to convey my emotions clearly.

I like to flow (cross-x to even the amount of time you spend on an argument and am happy to send a copy of my flow to you if you ever want it!)

Do what you do and do it well!

I vote on clear narratives, well warranted contentions, and terminalized impacts. I will do no work for you in terms of extending arguments through the flow, and I have a hard time voting for arguments that do not evolve throughout the round (don't just tell me to extend an argument from case, tell me why your opponents attack on it is mute and justify me extending it). I won't drop teams for being rude but you will make it harder for me to sign my ballot your way. Avoid spreading if you can, I'll flow it but it comes down to a quality vs quantity issue for me, make sure the arguments being made are good not plenty. Most importantly, please, do not lie, I have no tolerance for it.

"There's only one thing I hate more than lying: skim milk. Which is water that's lying about being milk." -Ron Swanson

Public Forum since 2014.

debated in varsity pf for 3 years at roosevelt high school in sioux falls, sd with a little bit of experience in circuit debate. in my 3rd-ish year of judging debate. currently a junior at the university of south dakota studying political science. pronouns are she/her/hers.

----------

GENERAL STUFF FOR EVERYONE:

speak up and speak clearly, but don't yell.

anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc. will make you lose automatically. no questions asked. debate tournaments must be a safe and inclusive space for everyone involved, and we need to keep it that way.

i will dock speaks for rude behavior (consistent interruptions during speeches/questioning/rfds, belittling opponents or judges, bashing on an opponent for genuinely not understanding something, etc.).

i can generally handle speed but 1) i'll stop flowing if i can't understand you and 2) you need to be mindful of what your opponents may prefer.

PLEASE USE TRIGGER WARNINGS PRIOR TO THE ROUND IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANY SENSITIVE MATERIAL. i don't want anyone to feel vulnerable or threatened by any material that may have an adverse impact on them.

for debate, i'll disclose the winning team and try my best to give an RFD if time allows.

----------

***IMPORTANT - PLEASE DO NOT SKIM OR SKIP!***

i know circuit debaters enjoy using technical jargon, but i strongly dislike it when teams clearly use this sort of language to overwhelm their opponents and practically stomp all over them. this language isn't supposed to be used to take advantage of others, whether it's through confusing them or by making it seem like you know what you're talking about when it’s all just fluff.

that being said, i truly believe the round needs to be accessible to everyone in the room. you shouldn't have to use technical jargon every 5 words in a sentence to win the round. i care more about the quality of your args/ev and your ability to get me to understand and believe what you're saying rather than your ability to say "terminal defense" 20 times in a speech.

i'm not saying you can't use jargon at all, but what i am saying is that you should tone it down and focus more on delivering well-developed and coherent args at a baseline level of understanding. i may not be a true "lay" judge due to my debate experience, but i just don't have the time to learn resolutions anymore, so doing this will help me out a lot when it comes to understanding what both sides are arguing. i also want all debaters to have the chance to comprehend the round as a whole without potentially being thrown off by the constant use of such jargon - everyone should be able to learn in this setting!

if you can adapt to this, i'll be happy. if you have any questions (especially since i may not have been totally clear in this), that's cool too! but if you're the type of person who prefers to have a debate that is a complete mashup of jargon b/c that’s the only way you know how to win, i'm NOT the judge for you. if you're stuck with me anyway and get upset, i won't feel sorry nor will i waste any time arguing with you or your coach(es). this has been a fair warning to everyone. thanks!

----------

PF:

constructive: definitions are fine if absolutely necessary but keep them short. framework is really helpful to have b/c it provides a lens for evaluating the round. i prefer seeing 2-3 clear points of contention presented in a case (“contention 1 is...” or some iteration of that). CLEARLY STATE TAGLINES, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS. a case w/o warrants and impacts is highly unlikely to get my vote.

rebuttal: put some sort of roadmap on top so i know where you're going. signpost clearly. personal preference = 1st rebuttal spends all 4 min on offense against the other case while 2nd rebuttal spends ~2 min on offense and ~2 min responding to 1st rebuttal's attacks. extend and cross-apply points when you can.

summary: again, provide some sort of roadmap. base this speech off of what has been said in the round thus far - no new args please. **clear and distinct voting issues** are really nice to have and make it easier for me to weigh the round on my flow. definitions don't count as voting issues.

final focus: basically just explain to me why you win the round with 2-3 voting issues. no new args or ev can be brought up. i will only weigh warrants and impacts that have been CLEARLY and CLEANLY extended throughout the round up until this speech. if it wasn't extended beforehand (i.e. brought up in rebuttal, dropped in summary, but brought up again in final focus), i won't weigh it.

ev: if you ask your opponents for ev after their speech or after crossfire, that's fine with me. i won't use your prep time while you're getting your ev unless it's taking an absurd amount of time. please refrain from calling for ev as a way to give yourself or your partner extra time to work on a speech. if i notice this, i'll dock your speaks.

NEW - how to effectively win my ballot: give me voting issues in summary/final focus so i know what to focus on for my decision. if you don't clearly state your voting issues (i.e., "our first voting issue is..."), i'm going to have to formulate my RFD around whatever i personally found interesting in the round, and i don't think that's in the best interest of any team. not having clear voting issues is an immense risk of losing my ballot.

other: do NOT try to run anything under the guise of theory, counterplans, kritiks, or anything similar. you will automatically lose if you do. i also stress quality over quantity. just because you read more ev doesn't mean that you win. i'd prefer to hear 1 good card from a reputable scholarly source rather than 10 mediocre cards from at-home blogs.

----------

EXTRA INFO:

if possible, i'll give an extra half speaker point (+0.5) to any debater who uses an effective (not half-assed) analogy in round that not only helps explain an arg better but is able to get a smile or laugh out of me. analogies can be a great way to understand a new or complicated concept, or they can be useful in simply portraying something in a different lens. i also think they help make the round more engaging, and i always appreciate debaters who strive to do that. we all get tired of going to rounds after a long day, especially towards the end of 2-3 day long tournaments. this is just a nice and simple way to help liven things up and bring energy back into the round!

i also know that i didn’t really touch on any other events in this b/c i wanted to keep this short and concise - if i’m your judge and we’re not in a pf round, i will happily answer your questions as best as i can, but please bear with me!

----------

if you have any questions that i didn't answer in this, please feel free to ask me!

Please Weigh

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

If you are going to include a framework please be sure to connect it to your impacts. I'll vote off of impact calc through the lense of whichever framework wins.

Weighing is the most important thing, link weigh if both sides link into the same impacts. If you plan on meta weighing be prepared for some more judge interference in terms of decision making, so be cautious! I want to hear the analytics behind the weighing as well, and be comparative.

Frontline! Defense in the second rebuttal! Narrative! Extend actual evidence!

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

I am ok with Ks IF they have a direct link into being a prereq of the topic. Prereq-ing the activity itself is also ok, but I would prefer it connect to the specific topic.

Lastly, please don't be rude. I will drop you if you are rude.

Background: I did four years of PF in SD and qualified for nationals in three of those years. Now, I attend Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, MN (Go Gusties!).

How I Judge:

1) I try my best to flow, but it's up to the speakers to weigh arguments and persuade me.

2) Impacts are second to warrants. If there is clash at the warrant level, I will prefer the side that best explains why theirs are more correct.

3) I will be listening in crossfire, not only for arguments and demonstration of topic knowledge but also for rudeness. I believe that being unduly disrespectful can warrant a loss (or at least much lower speaker points).

Preferences:

1) Articulate speech is nice, but I'm more concerned about content. I can handle speed relatively well.

2) I think it is very important that the second team's rebuttal responds to the first team's rebuttal. In summary and final focus, please weigh arguments in some fashion.

3) In SD, theory/counterplans/plans/Ks are not used in PF, so I do not have any experience with them in rounds. Lest you leave me totally confused, I would avoid using them.

I will evaluate and allow anything to a reasonable level, if I feel your running a case like a policy debater either speed wise or kritik wise I will not flow certain contentions ( Because of speed and you will know because I will put my pen down) and while I'm open minded and I will not flow kritiks if I feel they are abusive or not clash oriented, and thus I will not weigh them when concluding the round. 'I will weigh other arguments' Also I don't believe in morality as a value. Value to me translates what is the most moral thing to value and then criterion is the best way to translate this. 

Also I will buy anything without bias to the best of my effort, I will flow Value: Freedom Criterion: Elmination of Humanity for example. Also I will flow plan text but appeal to higher standards of morality I value broad morality more so, I know I should value framework debate over contention level but alas I'm falliable and I love contention level debate.

I am a former policy and IX debater, so speed is not much of an issue for me. I don't have a particular attachment to the formalities of debate, so theory arguments that can't prove obvious abuse don't move me too much. I think arguments designed to evaluate a policy proposal or resolution are more meaningful than arguments designed to 'win the game', and following that all advice I give is more in the interest of promoting clearly reasoned analysis than in the interest of strictly winning rounds. I believe that the burden of identifying specious logic is on the debater answering an argument, so I will not discredit faulty logic of an argument unless it is identified, but I will discredit responses to an argument that are similarly specious. If there are any other particular questions about how I judge, please ask me at the beginning of the round. If y'all have any questions or concerns about any feedback I give after the round, please feel free to reach out to me to expand or clarify anything, particularly since I am aware that my criticisms often are or appear harsh or unreasonable and I am always interested in adapting my language and approach to best engage debaters without dismissing or embittering them.

Hello!

For cases, I am fine with speed as long as you stay clear and organized.

For rebuttals, I like signposting and numbering your responses. It helps both me and you stay organized on the flow. If I don't know what point you're on, chances are it will be scattered across the flow and has a lower chance of being factored into my decision. With that being said, please do not spread. Nobody has 16 responses to one point. Nine times out of ten, five of those responses are the exact same, six of those responses don't even apply, and then you don't even have enough time to make your other responses impactful. I am very interested in hearing what you have to say, so make sure that you are more concise with those responses so you can get your point across.

For summaries, I know you have more time than I did when I was in PF, but I would still like you to summarize the round and give me some key voters. I would prefer this speech doesn't just turn into a second rebuttal. Address any points that need to be addressed in the round, but do so in a way that gives me a big picture view instead of going point-by-point down the flow. Be clear about voters, do some impact calc, and you'll be good to go.

For the final focus, I would like to see the same voters that your partner gave. It helps the flow stay clear and organized. Again, address any points you need to address, but it needs to be concise. You should definitely not be going point-by-point down the flow in this speech. Was something in the round uncontested and super unimportant? I don't need to hear about it. Chances are I can see it was uncontested on the flow and I'll make note about that. I want to hear about the big contentions of the round and how your impacts weigh against your opponents.

For crossfire, I love to see that everyone is so passionate and professional. That's great! Just remember not to take yourself too seriously, too. Please stay respectful. I know with an online format we might have some hiccups when it comes to accidentally speaking over someone because of lagging videos... that's fine. I can tell the difference between someone who is rude and someone who is having technical difficulties, and I will be a lot less likely to vote for you if you are rude to your opponents. If time goes off and you began a response, I'm totally fine with you quickly finishing! I want to hear what you have to say, but I will cut you off if your response gets to be too long.

Have fun!