Former PF debater 2005-2006

Former PF coach 2008-2018

I judge on the flow and strive to intervene as little as possible. In summary and final focus, tell me how your impacts compare to those of your opponent.

Try not to get bogged down in minutiae. I very rarely find myself deciding a round on specific pieces of evidence or framework debates.

Treat your opponents with respect. The fastest way to lose my ballot is to be rude or sexist.

Don't spread. A little speed is fine, but remember that this is a public speaking activity. A member of the public should be able to comprehend your speech.

I will flow and consider non-topical arguments, but I should mention that I do not often find them persuasive.

I have coached at ETHS for four years, though never participated in debate.

I enjoy theoretical argumentation, but prefer that there is a strong link to the resolution. Although I lean strongly toward radical, revolutionary politics, I try to refrain from bias and reward the debater whose arguments outweigh the other's based on sufficient refutation and lack of.

I think spreading is kinda wack. Not really concerned with how fast you can read.

I primarily debated LD for four years on the Iowa circuit and lightly on the national circuit and in Public Forum and Congress intermittently.

General:

Don't assume I know or think anything. Even if I think a case is bad, contradictory, or problematic, I can only judge the round based on what the competitors actually say.

Framework: This is the lens through which I will evaluate the round. I default to dropped framework, so it is imperative to address this ASAP so that discrepancies do not muddle the rest of the debate and I have a clear mechanism for determining the winner.

Evidence: Empirics will be preferred to abstract or speculative arguments without links or substantiation. It is of the utmost importance you have a complete understanding of your evidence. In the case of a card challenge or comparison, I will prefer the card where the team can cite the methodology and funding to the person who only has a snippet from the brief and can only explain it to the extent to which its been cut. Similar cards can be grouped in rebuttal only if the argument can apply to the entirety of the chain of evidence.

CF/CX: Answers given in the CX/CF are binding. However, the answers function independent of the flow unless integrated within the speeches. If a vital admission occurs in CX/CF, it must appear in the next consecutive speech to get ink on paper (PF: rebuttal, LD: NR/2AR) to extend through the round. On another note, it is important to explain complex or abstract argumentation effectively in the opportunity of the CF/CX. If it cannot be sufficiently explained to the opposition, there is a chance it has not been sufficiently explained to me as a judge, and in the case of the former, misunderstanding concepts within the round equates to ineffective or no clash making judging more difficult.

Extensions: The claim, warrant, and impact are paramount. Warrants and impacts are essential on the flow, especially extending through the round so that I can effectively compare the merits of each respective argument.

Signpost, signpost, signpost! Tell me where you want me to be on the flow - the contention or subpoint number, the name on the card you are referring to, etc.

Public Forum:

Summary: Everything you wish to flow through must be addressed here. I don't mind cross-applications or clumping, but the contentions/cards need to be mentioned so I can pull them through. The rest of the round should operate entirely out of what is mentioned in the summaries. If something goes dropped it's dead and I don't want it brought back up, except if to mention that it was dropped.

Lincoln Douglas:

Speed: I can adjudicate solely based on what I could comprehend of the round, so anything beyond fast but decipherable conversational speeds do competitors a disservice when judged by me. Comparatively, I am more likely to vote for a person who persuaded me through comprehensible, rational presentation than I am for someone who very well may have spread their opponent out of the round and covered the flow simply because I was unable to comprehend their arguments and thus could not make an informed decision. Putting speed on a scale, if you're usually at a 10, pull it back to a 6. I need you to slow down and put particular enunciation on tags, cards, or anything else you need to flow through.

Ks: I need a clear illustration of what is problematic and quantification for it in the status quo so it doesn't come off as pandering or circumvention. Don't assume I know or understand the premise of your k or that it defaults to significance; I need to be convinced that it is not only important but more important.

Theory: I don't have a problem with theory, though it isn't hard to spot when it circumvents actual debate. I only want theory when clear abuse necessitates it.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

Background

I was a PF and Congress debater at Blaine High School from 2010-2013, I then coached debate and participated in extemp speaking while in college. I have a B.S. in Finance and a M.S. in Data Science and currently work in IT. After taking some time away from forensics, I am excited to get back into the community.

PF:

I am a traditional judge. Do not speak fast, take the time to explain things to me, make sure I am following your point. I enjoy cross fire. Big picture debates, please give me mechanisms to weigh and make my job easy.

Throughout the round I am asking myself "Who is winning the debate at this point?", I do not flow everything that comes out of your mouth, I like the big picture.

Don't be mean. Don't be rude. This doesn't win in the real world and it won't win your round when I'm judging.

Most feedback will be on the ballot, don't hesitate to ask me questions after round or at rerystedt@gmail.com

Speaker Points: I range from 25-28. 29 is exceptional. Anything below that and there will be an explanation.

Congressional Debate:

Don't reiterate points that have already been brought up, acknowledge them and build new arguments. Reading a 3 minute polished canned speech is less impressive to me than a short, relevant summary speech.

Don't rush the chamber if you are the PO, please be reasonable, on the other side of it don't be a time hog if you are speaking/asking questions.

Do show leadership, advocate for your side by asking questions, build the debate up and move it along when it isn't going anywhere.

If you are volunteering to be the PO do it well, I like inclusiveness so pushing those who are newer to CD or haven't spoken yet makes me happy.

I debated for Marist School (GA) from 2011-2015, earned seven bids to the TOC (qualified junior and senior year). I am a senior at UChicago majoring in Environmental Science.

What I will be looking for in the round:

- Evidence: I expect your arguments to be well cited and warrants to be given. I don't accept an argument just because a random author said so--tell me why I need to believe you and that author. Evidence should be readily available or speaker points will drop. (That said, don't make the whole debate about a piece of evidence your opponents couldn't find. Just strike it from the flow and I will too.)

-Consistency: I should be able to find the arguments you choose in the final focus throughout every speech of the debate. Second rebuttals need to defend their contentions and answer the first rebuttal's arguments. Summaries should extend and clarify those arguments that will be in the final focus if you want me to vote on them.

-Evaluation: I want you to interact with all the arguments and evidence in the round. In general, it's better for you as the debaters to tell the judge how to weigh arguments (yours against your opponents) rather than hoping they will evaluate it the way you want. Be explicit and it will be easier for me to vote for your team.