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.

My paradigm is tabs, but I default policymaker. Speed is fine, just slow down on tags. I allow open CX and phone timers. I highly value logic in all arguments. I like impact calc in rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, tell my why what you are saying matters. I will vote on anything as long as it is explained well and you tell me why I should.

 

CPs: CPs are fine. For me to vote on a CP it needs to have a clear net benefit.   

DAs: DAs are always good, make sure to have a clear link and impact. I prefer specific DAs but generic ones are also okay to run in front of me.

Ks:  I am open to K arguments but am not very well versed in them. If you run a K in front of me or a K aff make sure to explain it well.    

Topicality: I will vote on T as long as it is run correctly. I will also vote on potential abuse as long as you explain why I should. 

Background:

Debated 2002-2006 at Brookfield Central High School; 

Policy and PF Coach at Nicolet High School from 2010-2015. This is my sixth year judging.    

 

Summary: I prefer policy based arguments (case, DA’s , CP’s) but I am willing to vote on whatever you bring up. Give me a clear analysis of how I should vote and I will. Also I see debate as an educational activity so ideally your arguments would add to the educational environment of a debate.   

 

Paperless: I’ll stop prep when the jump drive is out of your computer.  Mark cards as you read them.

 

T: I find reasonability to be fairly persuasive for the Aff but I can be persuaded to vote on T given a clear violation story. If you want me to vote on T, I need you to explain the in-round abuse or why I should vote on potential abuse. 

 

K: I am not well read on K evidence, so if you do run a K I would ask that you spend time truly explaining the technical aspects of your K. I prefer a more specific Alt and actual articulation of the link story.   

 

Theory: I, generally, agree with “reject the argument not the team”, but if given good analysis I would consider dropping the team. I understand the value of the theory debate as promoting fairness in the activity but I need a clear abuse story.

 

 Conditionality: I’m pretty neg if there is only one conditional counterplan. I would say that I am neutral with two conditional counterplans. Three or more, I am pretty aff.

 

 Identity/Performance: I really don't have much experience with this type of debate. If you engage in this type of debate in front of me, you need to clearly explain the goal of what you are doing is, how the ballot allows you to achieve that goal and why this goal is important.

You will need to do work to get me on the same page as you, but I am definitely open to evaluating this type of debate. 

 

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Kahn, Mujeeb  Edit 1… Experience: This is my second year judging for Milwaukee Public School. I have never debated as a high school student.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, and, no, I don't default to a policy ballot if not asked in the beginning of the round.

Topicality: Give me good, logical reasons why I should or should not vote on Topicality. I will vote on topicality, but you must present me with a clear story of the abuse and explain why I should vote against that abuse.

Counterplans: C.P. are fine with me, but must be mutually exclusive with the affirmative plan.

AD/DA: in policy debate, I would like to know both AD and DA. Then, let me decide which side is able to persuade in their direction.

Kritiks: these must be explained to i.e. I need reasons, explanations, and logical evidence from quality sources.

Delivery styles: please be loud and clear. Speed not considered a strategy to me. Use at your own desire.

Framework: framework is fine with me, as long as your able to explain it throughly.

If I was asked to define a good debate round, I will make sure to include clash, analytics and evidence as clearly as possible, such that, the ballot will flow in my favor.

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.

I try to be a tabs judge, so I will listen to and consider any argument as impartially as I can.

Things that are important to me/greatly improve your chances of winning:

-          Speak clearly even if that means slowing down, and take the time to explain your arguments in the context of the debate. – A well thought out answer goes a lot farther than a blurb in a block.

-          Engage with the other team’s arguments, if there is not clash, both sides suffer.

 

How to get speaker points

-          do the things that greatly improve your chances of winning ^

-          clarity in speaking (probably just slow down)

-          organized speeches/debates (I should know where to flow and what I’m flowing)

-          strategic thinking (make good arguments and use them to make more efficient use of your time)

-          well researched/explained arguments (know what you are talking about)

-          civility (being aggressive or belittling will give me a reason to look for reasons to vote for the other team)

 For me, there is a slightly higher burden for a team going for discursive arguments or theory/topicality to EXPLAIN the argument well. Especially links to Ks and how/why the other team is violating some standard. That being said, if you’re argument is relevant to the debate, I’m glad to hear it and vote on it.

 

Also I like hearing framework arguments, so if there’s a need for it, don’t hesitate to make them.

Me in a nut-shell: I debated for four years at Michigan State University from 2008-2012. I coached at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) from 2012-2014. After that, I went and got my PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). I coached at Marquette off and on while at UWM. Now, I am an Assistant Professor at Texas State University.

Update Texas 2020: I have not judged on the space topic, so my familiarity with the topic (and accompanying communal norms/beliefs) is likely *very* poor. I will work very hard to follow your arguments, but you will likely need to spend more time explaining them.

The Basics:

I have judged off and on for the past few years--not as much as I used to. I usually flow on pen and paper, so you might want to slow down a tad for theory, topicality, long tags.

Less is more -- one of the most common comments I make at the end of the round is "I think you tried to too many arguments and did not develop them"

Assumption-centered debate is bad. Do not assume I know or understand your argument; do not assume I know or understand how your argument interacts with other arguments in the debate. Explain it, substantiate it, defend it. Classic example: "this was answered in the overview" -- my typical thought, "how so?"

Technical concessions significantly affect my decisions. Even if the "thesis" of your position answers an argument, you should be explicit about how it does. I will likely think you dropped something if you overuse implicit clash.

Defense matters, but offense is critical. Another common theme in my decisions is "I thought you did an excellent job playing defense to 'x,' but you did not really extend your offense." This has been especially true in the framework and topicality debates that I judged in the past.

Paperless – I’ll stop prep when the jump drive is out of your computer.

Mark cards as you read them.

If someone is caught cheating (clipping cards/fabricating evidence), that person will receive zero speaker points and the team that the person was on will receive a loss. If you make a challenge, have evidence (recording). I will stop the round once a challenge is started.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and ableist language and arguments lower speaker points and can result in a loss. Please, just don't.

Case Debate: Yes, please. Impact defense has its place, but I would hope you would have more to say on the case.

Disads: Yes, please. I did a lot of politics work back in the day, and I still follow politics very closely. Winning uniqueness doesn’t mean that you have won a link. Winning a link doesn’t mean that the DA is unique. If you go for a disad and the case, note that I have historically voted affirmative on try-or-die (if the conditions for try-or-die are actually present). The negative should have some sort (even if it is minimal) of harms related defense or explicitly set up another way for me to evaluate impacts in the 2NR. Conversely, I find it very difficult to vote aff if they do not respond well to DA solves or turns the case.

Counterplans: Reject the argument, not the team is my default for all theory arguments besides status of the counterplan questions. Having said that, I still think the negative needs to flow, notice theory arguments, and say RANT.

I’m fairly affirmative on a lot of competition questions (ie certainty counterplans). Lately, I have found that more teams need to be willing to at least introduce the permutation to do the counterplan in the debate. Although, I certainly have voted for these counterplans in the past and will likely continue to do so.

I usually default to not kicking the counterplan for the negative if the negative does not explicitly say that I have this option in a speech or in cross-examination.

Conditionality: I’m pretty neg if there is only one conditional counterplan. I would say that I am neutral with two conditional counterplans. Three or more, I am pretty aff.

Critiques: In most judging pools, there are usually a good number of judges who are better for the critique than me. Have I voted on the critique? Yes. Am I as familiar with most critique literature as other judges? Likely not, and I feel like I lean aff in a lot of nexus questions involved in these debates.

Obviously, the more specific the critique to the plan, the better. When I vote for the critique, it is usually because the negative as done a lot of specific link work and/or a solid job of extending "the tricks" (alt solves the case, ethics first, root cause) and the affirmation has done a comparatively poor job of responding to those tricks or challenging the alternative. The affirmative is typically a good spot if they (1) don't forget about their aff, (2) challenge the alternative, and (3) respond to "the tricks."

I am a poor judge for positions based on the view that suffering or death are good or are inevitable. I am also a poor judge for Baudrillard and friends.

No-Plan Affs: I generally enter a debate thinking that it will involve a discussion of a plan, and I have much more experience judging debates that center on plans. Have I voted for affs without a plan against framework? Yes, a few times. Have I voted for framework against a aff without a plan? Yes, a few more times.

I usually find topicality/framework arguments persuasive, especially if they emphasize the benefits of research and switch-side debate on a predictable and stable status point. If you decide against reading a plan, you are better served defending why that choice is good instead of solely arguing why topicality/framework is bad. The more concrete the advocacy of the 1AC the better. The clearer the tie to the topic the better. When I have voted for no-plan affs, the aff did an excellent job justifying their aff and used their aff well to link or impact turn the negative's position. The easiest way for teams advancing topicality/framework to lose is by forgetting their impacts or failing to respond to an impact-turn of their position. In the debates that I have judged involving no-plan affs, the teams that did the best job framing and articulating a metaphor for what debate is generally did better (examples: "debate is a game," "debate is a training ground for activism," "debate is an educational activity where we can explore and develop views of the world and how it works"). I will say this: I am better for affs without plans that focus on exclusion/marginalization in society and/or debate than I am for high theory Ks (either on the aff or neg).

Topicality: If the aff is at the core of the topic and literature, I am pretty good for the aff against a contrived T interpretations. That said, on large topics, I can be persuaded that a limited vision of the topic is necessary, especially when one's interpretation is supported with strong evidence.

If you still have any questions, please ask before the round starts OR email me at josh.h.miller08@gmail.com. If I can tell that you enjoy debating, I will probably enjoy judging the debate.

I am a tabs judge. I come into a debate being unbiased as possible. Whoever has the best arguments will win the round when I am judging. Furthemore, I like big on speaker points. Teams with good speaking points in most cases win my vote. Finally, I do not like speed. Most judges out there like speed, but I do not. I would rather have a debater speak slower and get the message of argument to insteading of trying to run through all arguments at a quick speed. If a team goes to fast for me I will stop flowing because I do not understand what is being said. 

***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

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

Background:

I debated for Mukwonago starting in my sophomore year. Novice year was policy, the next two years were PF. Since high school, I've judged on and off for Muk, and am now their assistant coach.

Affiliations:

Mukwonago

Hansen

Policy: I'm going to vote on the best policy, however, if you miss something big, that could very well be a voting issue for me should that thing outweigh your impacts. On the Aff, I like solvency. If you run nothing pertinent to harms, at least get some solvency in. On the Neg, I don't care about on case. Give me disads, counterplans, theory, and kritiks (I particularly enjoy those). I love theory qnd framework as well; easily my favorite argument in all forms of debate. I'm typically a PF judge, and I did PF through most of my debate career, so speed is a no no.

LD: Give me a good framework debate. I'll vote on best framework and who fits that framework best. I will not vote on plans, and I will not vote on counterplans (unless at national style tournament). If you choose to run a plan or CP, that's your prerogative, but understand that I won't vote for it. It may be an interesting way to create an argument that's merely a time suck, and I'm definitely cool with that, but if your opponent has read this at all, they'll know not to touch it because I won't vote on it. The WDCA does not allow these, therefore I will not flow them. Again, I was a PF debater, so no spreading. If I can't hear you, I won't flow.

PF: I won't necessarily weigh a round exclusively on speaking skills and how good of an orator you are, but it will certainly help your case, especially if it's a tough decision.

No matter what, I want to see impact calc. I pity the fool who don't do impact calc. I don't care how cool inflation might be, if you don't give me any dead bodies, I likely won't know what to do. Always weigh the round in the final rebuttal, make it as clear to me as possible that you're winning. Be polite to your opponents always. Being snappy made PF need to sit down during cross, so be nice. If you have something absolutely ridiculous like some kind of a kritikal aff, feel free to use it in front of me. I will absolutely vote on stupid things provided they're executed well (i.e. Death is the end of human suffering, and therefore whichever side kills the most amount of people should win the debate; meme/joke cases, Performance AFFs). The only catch is to go all in with those, or don't do them at all. Go big or go home, there is no in between.

Email is timpeplinski96@gmail.com

(send memes)

I consider myself a biased tabs judge. I will vote on any arguments, but I tend to need a far more compelling story than dropped blip args before I'll vote on T and theory. Tell me what the in-round abuse is, paint me a picture of the ragged corpse of debate caused by voting for arguments of the kind your opponent is making, regale me with a description of the bitter tears of your mother when she contemplates the fact that conditional counterplans will continue in debate, whatever-just make it strong, believable, and give it impacts that demand immediate action on my part. In general, I'll default to "reject the arg not the team" without a quite good reason to do otherwise.

I'm happy to hear and vote on critiques, but I would ask you to actually do some critiquing when you run them By this I mean that the link flow is the most important flow on the K, and that it's easy to convince me that a well-explained link is applicable across the flow.  It also means that I don't buy that there is such a thing as the "risk of a link" to the K-either you are making well-warranted indictments of the plans underlying assumptions and representations or you are not.  Finally, it means that I don't default to the perm without genuine argumentation-if the neg is putting in genuine link work, the idea that the perm might somehow be a thing to default to strikes me as facially ludicrous.  For affs, this means that a robust challenge to the link and a careful delineation of exactly what your plan entails is an easy A strategy.

In general, I prize rounds involving debaters actually doing some real evidence and argument analysis, and that's probably an easy way to impress me as well. You're better off going for one very strong argument that you can support with detailed analysis than ten little positions and a lot of screaming about nuclear war. I'm rarely impressed by claims that one drop on a 20 point flow is necessarily round-decisive. Do your impact analysis, as well-within the limitations outlined above, I will weigh the round as the debaters tell me to.

I don't often call for ev unless it's questioned in the round or I think it's highly fishy. I am very willing to yell at you about dubious ev, and to drop you if I catch you with flat out lies or out of context cards. I'll make that judgment whether or not the other team brings it up, but I will only drop you on it absent a team challenge if I know for an absolute fact that your ev was cut out of context or has similar strong issues. Still, I read a lot, and may have seen your literature...

As far as speed goes, I'm fine with it, but probably not as good as some about hearing everything you do in a very fast round. If I'm starting to miss arguments or cards (and I try to flow your warrants as well as your cards), or if you start mumbling, I'll ask you to slow down or clear up, and I need you to respect that. If I ask you to do this a couple times, you're better off pretending I said that I insist on conversational speed.

Policy: My debate history is I debated for MUHS in Varsity Policy, my partner and I won state in 2015, and there's probably a whole list of dumb accoclades. In short, run anything you want infront of me because I am comfortable with all arguments. Feel free to be as creative or uncreative with your arguments. I like K's and I am pretty K friendly. I am good with all CP's, DA's, etc. Feel free to run any Aff, plan text or not, I enjoy both equally. I like clear reasons to vote, not to the point you keep saying this is a reason to vote, but to the point where impacts are clear and I don't have to make any leaps for you. Feel free to call out your opponents on their BS. If they're misconstruing, call it out because I won't do it for you; it's part of the game. The only thing I really don't like is muddled theory debates, but those don't really happen if no one drops the ball in round. I am also not a lover of T, but I will vote for it. I really hate when teams visibly give up mid-round, so even if you know you're behind, present a strong case. If anything is unclear, please just ask me before the round and I will happily answer.

LD: For LD, I would be considered a "progressive judge" because I am open to all forms of progressive arguments, but that does not mean I treat traditional debates any differently. In short, run any arguments you want as long as you can make a convincing argument that has a clear impact that is weighed in the round and is extended clearly; I will vote on anything: F/W, K's, Turns, etc... if you give me sufficient reason for my decision. Feel free to spread or not, speed is no issue, just be clear. Remember to address your opponents responses when they are clearly extended through, even just saying cross-apply {insert card name} is infinitely better than dropping it. I can specifically answer questions before round if there are any.

Silva, Oscar
Policy Preference Information

I am an English Teacher at Reagan IB High School in Milwaukee. This is my third year as a debate coach. My paradigm defaults to TABs. In a good debate round I expect to see clear speaking and a strong connection of any argument to the debate/policy. Please stay away from topicality as I have found the rounds tend to deviate from the subject at hand.Ks must make sense to policy and not deviate into philosophy land. Also, politeness is a crucial part of debate for me and any impolite words or actions will be reflected in speaking points.

Short Version:

Yes, put me on the email chain: jtierneyiv@yahoo.com.

Background: I am a former CX debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute.

Paradigm: I vote for the team that wins their arguments in the round. I can handle any speed so long as you are moderately understandable.

Theory/Framework/Topicality: Raw Theory arguments. I do not love them, but if they are applicable, I will vote on them.

Counterplans: I like a good counterplan. I do believe it must meet its burdens of topicality and competitiveness, however.

K: I will support a good K. Like any set of arguments, I expect strong warrants.

Disadvantages: I enjoy a good disad debate. I have no problem with extinction level impacts, but I like a good internal link story.

In Round Character: I do not like offensive language, treating your partner or the opponent with disrespect, or other similar behavior. I also do not have a problem with prompting, calling out time or even assisting with C-X. However, there is a limit. If you are giving your speech or C-X for your partner, I won't really enjoy it.

My ideal debate is a good, fast policy debate with lots of clash.

My preferred form of address is "Warchief!"

Thank you!

LONG VERSION

General Paradigm

I am a former debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute. I had multiple bids to TOC in multiple years. It was fun. I recommend it.

I'm open to any type of debate except those that mock the debate form. My favorite debates to judge are fast policy debates with clash. I will attempt to limit my in round intervention, but if there's little explanation, I will consider intervening. Don't make me do it.

Everything in this paradigm is a predisposition, not something I will absolutely hold to. I try to limit the application of my pre-conceptions in the debate round. I am not a fan of judges importing their politics or worldview into a decision. In other words, I might vote for an argument I personally loathe if the debater won it and won its weight in the round. You should win because you're a good debater, not because you made me feel good about my life choices.

Disads

Like I said, I love a good DA debate. Immigration bad DAs are okay with me if they are based in evidence. If you think that's objectionable, then why are we even debating immigration policy? Tell me why immigration is bad in a thoughtful manner, though. Racist or political tripe from either direction on the spectrum will given the weight it deserves--almost none. My threshold for explaining the story of a DA is pretty low. As long as you extend all the levels of the DA, I'm likely to understand it, new DA or old. On case turns- refer to what I said above regarding immigration bad.

Counterplans

Unlike my son, I do think counterplans should be competitive and non-topical. A counterplan which is not competitive does not argue against the resolution. I will accept advantage level cps, but you will have to work hard on net benefits. ...and I expect actual research and solvency.

Condo is good up to 1-2 CP and 1K. Condo's fine/debatable at 2CPs and 1K. After that, I become open to abuse arguments. I'll vote for condo, don't be afraid to go for it in front of me.

International or state fiat can be ok. Tell me why it works. Process is fine. Just have a solvency advocate please. This applies to Aff teams as well.

T

I like a good to debate, but I prefer policy analysis. Don't run silly T arguments. Tell me why your interpretation is important. If you are presenting a limiting argument, be prepared to support your limits with specificity. Don't assume your limit is good, tell me why! I am more in favor of a looking at T from a clash or neg ground perspective.

Ks

I like well-developed, clear link stories that clash with the affirmative and turn the case. If you can give me impacts that make me evaluate the actual consequences of hypothetical implementation of the Aff's policy action, I like it. I like a solid ALT.

K Affs

I generally think that topic education and clash are intrinsically good things. But the Aff can win by showing the resolution debate is bad---it just might be a fairly high threshold.

Speaks

Obviously 27-30 because kids now get grade inflation. I like clarity and speed. If you can't be clear, dont speed. Don't be a mush mouth.

Overall, Have fun.

I was a policy debater at Cornell University from 2004-2007. While a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I supported and judged for the debate team at Rufus King International High School in Milwaukee; I have also served as a judge for Ronald Reagan High School for forensics. I am currently the Assistant Director for the Atlanta Urban Debate League (AUDL).

Judge Philosophy

I generally will not do extensive impact analysis for teams who don't do the work in the round. Thus, I will always lean in favor of the team who does a better job of explaining their arguments and how their arguments interact with the opposing teams. I generally don't vote for arguments that are "dropped" on one sheet if they are adequately answered by work elsewhere on the flow, particularly for novice or JV teams. While I generally don't have an ideological investment in the round, I am not persuaded by ontologically violent arguments.

I generally only dock speaker points for debaters who engage in malicious ad hominem or cross reading/clipping.

General - I am open to most arguments and presentation styles (including performance affirmatives and kritiks) but you need to do the work on the flow/in-round.

Topicality - Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Debates should be reasonable and provide equitable ground.

Reading Evidence - If you flag evidence for me, I am willing to evaluate it to determine if the warrants support the argument/tag. However, I not willing to reconstruct arguments for you.

Theory - ASPEC is only a thing if you don't respond to it. I'm fine with conditionality...but if you run a conditional, multi-planked counter-plan...no.

DAs - Clash is good.

K - I'm a fan. If you are an AFF and someone is running a K against you, it is your responsibility to engage the K and rigorously challenge the ALT and its solvency. Similarly, if you are a NEG running a K, then you need to explain how your argument (framework or otherwise) interacts with the 1AC arguments. You need an ALT. The ALT must have solvency.

While I am fairly familiar with (and enjoy) the lit from fem, womanism, and CRT, you need to have a good explanation of the theory and how it materially functions in the round.

K AFFS - While you can be critical of it, you must have a plan text and you must advocate and defend action by the United States Federal Government.

Judge Name: Andrew M Yep

School: Waukesha South High School

Experience

Yep was never a member of debate in high school. He does appreciate judging and debate. He is usually a policy judge but on occasion does get absorbed into the LD and Public Forum realms. Yep is not up to date on Debate lingo. So be sure to explain things and go slow.

Philosophy

Yep has been called Policy, Stocks and Tabs. Thus he does not know exactly where he fits. Persuasion is important and is enhanced by clarity. He will take into consideration all things he understands in the round that are not dropped. Yep does not like it when a team kicks arguments unless there exists a contradiction a speaker cannot explain away. Personally Yep does not like speed and spread. He prefers quality over quantity. If a speaker feels it is necessary to do a line by line analysis give it the time and do not speed over it.

Topicality - Yep is not against topicality. Words are important in the world. But Yep needs definitions, standards and voters. Also provide analogies and examples of what plans work under the definition and what does not. This helps Yep figure out if there exist a Topicality violation.

Counterplans - Counterplans need to be clear. If the counterplan is not mutually exclusive then a net benefit must be clearly achieved.

Kritiks - Yep is not a philosophy major. Yep does not vote on these often. A speaker may use one but at the risk of Yep being very confused. Be sure to explain the link thoroughly and provide an alternative.

Disadvantages - If Yep misses the link he will be very confused. Clarity is a must. When a DA is introduced Yep firmly believes that minimally it should be linked and impacts discussed in the 1NC.

Structure of the Round and Speaking

Yep likes signposts and likes very clear and slow tags. Yep prefers cross examinations to be closed so that he can judge your organization and understanding of arguments which will reflect into speaker points. If a speaker turns into a parrot that will reflect poorly in speaker points.

Rebuttals

Speakers should summarize the round pull through their arguments. Weigh the round through magnitude, timeframe and probability. Yep likes probability he is a statistics teacher. Obviously certain percentages cannot always be given but we can use word like “certain” or “uncertain”. He enjoys it when speakers question the validity of studies and experiments. Analogies and examples are not only welcomed but encouraged.

Timing & Technology

Yep’s timer is final. He is a little slow in starting it. He tries to let a team know when he is starting it. He will on occasion tell you how much you have left. In regards to technology the prep time will only end when the portable storage device is physically removed from the port of entry and is one its way to the other team or if the the teams opt for an email chain then prep time will end when the opposing team confirms they received the message